|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants??
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
I tend to equate Evangelical Anglican with Calvinist (or Reformed). People like RC Sproul or Alister McGrath, or here in the US, large parts of the ACNA.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
I tend to equate Evangelical Anglican with Calvinist (or Reformed). People like RC Sproul or Alister McGrath, or here in the US, large parts of the ACNA.
Wait, I forgot, Sproul isn't Anglican, I was thinking of Packer.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism
Baptising babies was of course encouraged by Calvin and is generally normative is those churches in the Reformed family that don't have a Baptist background.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This would be in opposition to the Calvinists who maintain that Christ merely died for the Church.
Technically, Calvinists believe that Christ died for the Elect who become the church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition.
To agree with you actually ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I would say that we are probably ambivalent about so-called ordinances anyway. Just what did Jesus instruct? Did the man who set aside the traditions of men really set up ceremonial ordinances to be fulfilled and obeyed?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, I doubt if he ever expected that we'd actually have formalised and ritualised them in the ways we have.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism
Baptising babies was of course encouraged by Calvin and is generally normative is those churches in the Reformed family that don't have a Baptist background.
Yes, but we wouldn't have had the same theology of infant baptism - ie covenant. We would not say that in baptism the salvation of the parents covers the child.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, I doubt if he ever expected that we'd actually have formalised and ritualised them in the ways we have.
Perhaps we could retain these things and make them much less formal? Could not a proper meal also be seen as a sacrament/ordinance?
To keep on the point of this thread, could the difference between catholic and protestant be seen in getting rid of the hang ups about strictly accurate liturgical actions and a finely tuned belief that only certain edible substances are The Sacrament?
Could a sacrament actually be in the gathering of God's people and the eating of a shared meal with Christ as the unseen guest, rather than in saying that only an elevated wafer dipped in wine over which prescribed words have been accurately said, can be the body and blood of Christ?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes.
I'll order you a uniform - it's exactly The Salvation Army's position
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Ah - but I'm not really a "uniform" person ...
(P.S. I must tell you a totally irrelevant story. I had a friend who was a SA Officer in London. It just so happened that the design of the uniform hats was almost identical to the hats worn by the local Parking Wardens. So, whenever he was collecting outside the local Shopping Centre, cars would slow down to park illegally on the yellow lines, then the drivers would see him and race off. He reckoned that the Council should pay him for his services in keeping the traffic moving).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I understand the Roman Catholic Church's definition of the phrase 'Catholic Church'. It is clear, coherent and understandable.
I also understand the traditional Reformed understanding of the term. That is also clear, coherent and understandable.
I must admit to being mystified though by the implied Anglican meanings of the phrase in this thread. As far as I can tell it appears to be that denominations are part of the Catholic Church if they are sufficiently similar in theology, ecclesiology and cultural accretions to an idealised conceptual RCC, the main point of the exercise being to make sure the RCC and the Anglicans are on one side of the line and the Baptists and Presbyterians on the other...
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To agree with you actually I would say that we are probably ambivalent about so-called ordinances anyway. Just what did Jesus instruct? Did the man who set aside the traditions of men really set up ceremonial ordinances to be fulfilled and obeyed?
I always got the impression that Jesus was fine with ceremony and tradition, so long as it didn't get in the way of loving people. So he kept the Passover in accordance with Jewish tradition; and he attended the local Synagogue on the Sabbath. But he also healed people any time, any place, regardless of what the Law said. He ignored the rules that separated men and women or Jews and Samaritans because he had more pressing concerns and those rules went contrary to love. Ceremony in the sacraments, particularly in Holy Communion which is, in so many ways, a refinement of the Passover, is entirely appropriate and in keeping with Christ's behaviour. That's not to say that there won't be times when it is right to dispense with the rules and do something different for the sake of love, just as Jesus did.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I always got the impression that Jesus was fine with ceremony and tradition, so long as it didn't get in the way of loving people... He ignored the rules that separated men and women or Jews and Samaritans because he had more pressing concerns and those rules went contrary to love.
And yet I cannot take communion in a Roman Catholic Church, a woman cannot be a priest and preside over the Mass and most Protestants wouldn't want to receive it from a priests in any case. One of the foundational reasons for The Salvation Army doing away with formal sacraments is down to the Church of England refusing to give the Sacraments to Salvation Army people who had not been previously confirmed in the Church.
I cannot think of a more divisive part of Christian activity than a formal ritual sacrament.
This whole question of Catholic v Protestant would not even exist had the Lord's supper not been so finely tuned and rigid that people were burned to death if they differed in just one phrase in their description of it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I feel very much like a reformed catholic; from the outside, I am probably one of those liberal catholic members of the Church of England which make no sense to anyone else, because they aren't in their right home and/or our position doesn't really exist.
Like everything else, the question of sacraments/ordinances and the place of the biblical narrative in church life seems to me to be an arena where compromise and adjustment in light of experience are both essential. Adopting a position because it reinforces a pre-established identity seems to me to be missing the point utterly spectacularly, and to be sacrificing living experience of life in God for the joys of stable identity.
As we believe that God's Word was made flesh, not written down - the written record is useful and effective, but nevertheless secondary to the Incarnation, it is entirely legitimate to take seriously the experience of the community of believers, living in the footsteps of that incarnation, and to incorporate that experience into our lived faith now. Sacraments may or may not have biblical precedent; they may be hallowed by experience and by their power to connect people to each other and to God. This strikes me as no bad thing, and as entirely legitimate. We live, and are called to live, in the here and now; not in an endless recreation of 1st-century Palestine. Equally, however, we would be foolish to forget that we are not the first people to try and follow in the footsteps of a certain 1st-century Palestinian and his followers, and to learn from them and from others who have already done what we are trying to do.
[ 02. May 2015, 08:52: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet I cannot take communion in a Roman Catholic Church, a woman cannot be a priest and preside over the Mass and most Protestants wouldn't want to receive it from a priests in any case. One of the foundational reasons for The Salvation Army doing away with formal sacraments is down to the Church of England refusing to give the Sacraments to Salvation Army people who had not been previously confirmed in the Church.
I'm not disagreeing that at times in the past the Church has erred in enforcing the letter of the law instead of the spirit (you will, however, note that the CofE no longer requires confirmation to receive communion, and indeed extends communion to anyone who would normally receive it in their own church). Indeed there are instances where the church continues to do so, and Protestants are just as guilty of that as anyone else (trying to stray too near the dead horses).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A little story Mudfrog: My Lutheran pastor and his wife were visiting a certain community in Maryland and decided to worship at the Roman Catholic Cathedral one Sunday. As they entered, they were greeted by an usher who asked them if they would be willing to carry the elements up to the alter during the offertory. They agreed. So, at the time of the offertory they took the elements up to the bishop who was celebrating the Eucharist at that service.
As they approached, the bishop greeted them and asked if they were visitors. They just said yes. He asked them where they were from. Western Washington. The bishop knew the bishop from Western Washington! He welcomed them.
My pastor said they actually felt obligated to commune that day. In both kinds.
Myself I have communed several times during Roman Catholic Mass. Once when I was in an ICU at a Roman Catholic Hospital, one of the priests was doing the rite of The Anointing of the Sick (Last Rites) to one of the patients near me. I was able to repeat the whole rite with the priest. He noticed that and came over to speak with me. I was in the hospital three weeks. He came by a couple of times to see me during the stay.
One Christmas I was again in a Roman Catholic Hospital because of a car crash. I asked for communion. One of the lay communion ministers came by. They did not have a Lutheran available that day, so he gave me communion.
So, don't assume you will not be permitted to go to Roman Catholic Communion. They don't have armed guards preventing you from approaching the altar.
Technically, though, there are certain conditions for receiving RC communion.
You must be in a state of grace
You need to have confessed your last mortal sin.
You have to believe in the Real Presence in the elements once they are consecrated.
You should have observed a Eucharistic fast and
You must not be under any ecclesiastical censure
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
One other essential is to have been baptised.All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
It is also important to have a wish to receive Communion,not just because others are doing so, but rather because one wishes to receive the Lord under these sacramental signs.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One other essential is to have been baptised.All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
It is also important to have a wish to receive Communion,not just because others are doing so, but rather because one wishes to receive the Lord under these sacramental signs.
That's news to me. Baptism by itself isn't enough. The sacraments of Christian initiation go thus: baptism, confirmation and holy communion.
[ 02. May 2015, 17:30: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
One can't be confirmed before one has first been baptised.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One can't be confirmed before one has first been baptised.
Indeed, but that wasn't my point.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
Not strictly rebaptism but conditional baptism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Not strictly rebaptism but conditional baptism.
Either way still ridiculous.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's difficult to say, of course, not knowing all the details but assuming no ill will on the part of the priest then he must have had some reason to doubt the original baptism. The practice of conditional baptism is also quite common in many Orthodox jurisdictions as a kind of "just in case".
[ 02. May 2015, 19:33: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
It could be too that that's what the convert wanted. Sometimes a convert will want to draw a line under his previous identity. Otherwise it does seem unusual from what little I know
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ad Orientem will correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather the Russians are more likely than other Orthodox jurisdictions to re-baptise converts from other Christian groups - just in case.
I've not heard of it being done in an RC context, so I was surprised to read that up-thread ...
An Orthodox priest once told me that they will generally accept RC, Anglican and other Trinitarian non-Orthodox baptisms - but in the case of people from independent charismatic fellowships or 'non-denominational' churches they will often baptise 'just in case' as they've often found people from these backgrounds to be iffy on issues like the Trinity and not particularly well-taught on the creedal basics.
Sadly, looking around, I think they have a case ...
Be that as it may, I have seen other Orthodox online write that the baptisms of other Christian groups are not 'valid' in themselves but only 'potentially' so as it were and somehow 'completed' or validated retrospectively by Orthodox chrismation ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
It could be too that that's what the convert wanted. Sometimes a convert will want to draw a line under his previous identity. Otherwise it does seem unusual from what little I know
What the person might want is in fact totally irrelevant. If someone has been baptised then it is strictly forbidden to baptise them again.
Furthermore, when dealing with an adult convert, it's not just up to the priest either: all adult conversions need to be referred to the diocesan Chancery - the bishop's office for these things. One has to await permission before proceeding, and the Chancery will check if there has been a baptism.
The Code of Canon Law is quite specific:
quote:
Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.
§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.
As it happens, I am dealing with just such a situation at the moment. Agapantha asked to be received into full communion, and attended all the sessions. She had been a member of a reformed church in the USA, and had been attending church for years. When it came to getting a certificate, pandemonium ensued because no-one could recall if she had been baptised or not, the churches she attended had no records and her parents had both died. So there now exists a serious doubt that she was ever baptised and so I will not receive her into full communion but will conditionally baptise her.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
As I said, it various from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Here in Finland Lutheran baptism is generally accepted (most converts being from Lutheranism). And yes, chrismation "completes" baptism, even Orthodox baptism. It is in chrismation that the Holy Spirit is given, that is in chrismation ones baptism is sealed with the Holy Spirit, the sign of which is annointing with sacred chrism.
[ 02. May 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
L'organist - my post about all the baptised being considered members of the Catholic Church stands.
I have no doubt about what you say,unusual as it is for a person who had previously a communicant of the Church of England.
For some reason I can only conclude that there must have been some doubt about the validity of the baptism. Perhaps your relative could not produce written proof of the baptism.
Or is it just possible that your relative was received into the RC church at an Easter Vigil service where a number of people might have been baptised and those already baptised ,anointed with oil of Confirmation ?
Mudfrog said that he could not receive Communion in a Catholic church,although he did not say why he would wish to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
Gramps gave a list of times when a non Catholic Christian m (licitly from a Catholic point of view) receive Communion.
Ad Orientem should know that while it is necessary to be baptised, it is not necessary to have been confirmed to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...As it happens, I am dealing with just such a situation at the moment. Agapantha asked to be received into full communion, and attended all the sessions. She had been a member of a reformed church in the USA, and had been attending church for years. When it came to getting a certificate, pandemonium ensued because no-one could recall if she had been baptised or not, the churches she attended had no records and her parents had both died. So there now exists a serious doubt that she was ever baptised and so I will not receive her into full communion but will conditionally baptise her.
I imagine any church which practices baptism would do much the same, wouldn't it? When my father was going to be confirmed in the CofE, in his 40s, he thought he might have been baptised as a baby, possibly in the Methodist church, but wasn't sure and there were no records and my grandparents were dead, so he was conditionally baptised.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
In some decades of knocking around Anglicanism I have only ever heard the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" line once, and that was in Canada, at the beginning of the sermon, and, perversely but wonderfully, was followed by one of the most magnificent Barthian sermons I have ever heard. Certainly, I have never come across it as a Baptismal formula, and I worshipped for some years in a liberal parish in the Diocese of Southwark. If there are some reasonable grounds in individual cases then fair enough, but anyone who assumes that Baptism with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not the usual practice in the C of E is intellectually on the level of someone who believes that the Jesuits are planning to kill the Queen and replace her with a shapeshifting lizard who will hand the Falklands back to Argentina and Gibraltar to the Spanish.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Ad Orientem should know that while it is necessary to be baptised, it is not necessary to have been confirmed to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
I know. And it is yet another error, thanks to Pius X the archreformer. Confirmation was never meant to be separated from baptism. So the RC now has people receiving holy communion who aren't fully initiated into the RC confirmation now being linked to the "age of reason", whatever that is.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Thanks Fr. TT - I will admit I was just guessing
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
In some decades of knocking around Anglicanism I have only ever heard the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" line once, and that was in Canada, at the beginning of the sermon, and, perversely but wonderfully, was followed by one of the most magnificent Barthian sermons I have ever heard. Certainly, I have never come across it as a Baptismal formula, and I worshipped for some years in a liberal parish in the Diocese of Southwark. If there are some reasonable grounds in individual cases then fair enough, but anyone who assumes that Baptism with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not the usual practice in the C of E is intellectually on the level of someone who believes that the Jesuits are planning to kill the Queen and replace her with a shapeshifting lizard who will hand the Falklands back to Argentina and Gibraltar to the Spanish.
A priest in Queensland (IIRC) was removed from ministry a few years ago for among other things baptising with the above formulation. He was well known for his heterodoxy but his bishop had neglected to do anything about him until it came to light (and Rome's attention) that dozens, if not more, of his parishioners had never been validly baptised.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
t I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
From here:
quote:
8 Conditional Baptism
If it is not certain whether a person has already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then the usual service of baptism is used, but the form of words at the baptism shall be
N, if you have not already been baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I think there's no difference between C of E and RC doctrine here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Tangent warning.
On the subject of baptismal formulae, there is a very large local penty church with ultimate origins in the Oneness Pentecostalism (or Jesus Only) modalism common in the US, which used to (and possibly still does) baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), even in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)", which prior to the decimalisation of our currency in Australia would have been known as "having a bob each way".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Forthview:
My cousin was baptised (by a bishop) during a service of Holy Communion according to the proper rites and ceremonies of the Church of England in 1962; it was baptism "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - I know, I was there and remember the occasion quite well. The Godparents were all baptised, confirmed and communicant members of the CofE - in fact two were priests - so there can be no doubt it was a valid baptism.
And my cousin had (given to them by my aunt) the Baptism Certificate with all the details, plus information about the later confirmation and first communion.
There can be no doubt about the validity of the original baptism; and the so-called 'reception' was not at an Easter Vigil service.
There was no good reason at all for the 're-baptism' except that given by the RC priest at the time "because it wasn't a good Catholic baptism we're doing it properly (sic) now".
Not only was I outraged, so was an RC friend who was there.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
It is of course quite silly,to rebaptise,if one is already validly baptised.
Not only r.c. priests are the culprits,eastern orthodox have often done the same, even to former
roman-catholics.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
L'organist thank you for taking the time to explain more about the background to your relative's 'so-called' reception into the RC church.
I share your outrage at the way this ceremony was conducted. I repeat that the official position of the Catholic church is that all the baptised are members of the Church.
Of course that does not necessarily put all the baptised into full communion with the Catholic church,nor does it mean that all the baptised would rejoice in being called 'Catholic'.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Tangent warning.
On the subject of baptismal formulae, there is a very large local penty church with ultimate origins in the Oneness Pentecostalism (or Jesus Only) modalism common in the US, which used to (and possibly still does) baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), even in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)", which prior to the decimalisation of our currency in Australia would have been known as "having a bob each way".
As a girl my mother was baptised 'in Jesus' name', but didn't get re-baptised as a Trinitarian when she joined the Methodists later. I don't think the Methodists knew, but they probably wouldn't have been very theologically anxious about it even if they had.
I get the impression that the CofE is stricter about this sort of thing, being a more sacramentally-focused and liturgically-minded organisation. I think this must be due to its 'Catholic side' rather than its 'Protestant side'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Boo hoo!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Boo hoo!
QED.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I get the impression that the CofE is stricter about this sort of thing, being a more sacramentally-focused and liturgically-minded organisation. I think this must be due to its 'Catholic side' rather than its 'Protestant side'.
Not sure about that. I think it's got as much to do with regarding Matt 28:19 as authoritative.
quote:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...
I've heard there is a small denomination based in Chard that has an unusual baptismal formula. Do any shipmates know anything about this?
[ 03. May 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Doesn't the RC Church recognize baptisms of other Churches when undertaken using the orthodox Trinitarian formula? I expect if someone wished to be received into the Catholic Church they would probably have to produce a baptism cert to prove valid baptism?
'Conditional' baptisms on the other hand are well enough known where it's unclear to, say, ordinands and confirmands, that they received such a baptism. An ordinand, eg, has to produce a cert to prove it. Otherwise the ordaining bishop will perform a conditional baptism. And I daresay some priests preparing their confirmands might even go that far to ensure their candidates are validly baptised.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
