CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 (edited) Didn't log out. Edited December 1, 2004 by CatholicCrusader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Sojourner, that was very imprudent (and sinful) by the person who made that decision. You should ask to be conditionally baptized. There is no way to be sure that the first 'Baptism' was valid. The Church has ALWAYS conditionally baptized those who were not baptized in the Church; even if the first 'Baptism' was valid, there is no way of knowing. This practice has been stopped since Vatican II in the name of false Ecumenism, but, please, for your sake, ask to be conditionally baptized. Also, please talk to the others who converted and explain to them the reasons for being conditionally baptized, so they can be conditionally baptized as well. The fact is, there is no harm in being conditionally baptized (because if you are already baptized, it does not change anything), but if you do not get baptized conditionally and you were not validly baptized the first time, then there is obviously a HUGE problem (damnation). You should ask your priest why this was not done to begin with and should ask him to conditionally baptize you (there is no reason for this not to be done). Also, a Confession should be made after a conditional Baptism (in the event that the person actually was already baptized). Theoretically this would not be necessary if the person is not in mortal sin (because, regardless of whether or not he had previously been baptized, he would not have a mortal sin on his soul), but why skip a chance to go to Confession? God bless. Also, why would it be "phishy" to say that non-Catholic baptisms are generally invalid? They are. Any "baptism" administered to someone once he reaches the Age of Use (rather than as an infant) would be assuredly invalid insofar as it is clearly the intent that this is merely a symbol and not regenerative. In the case of infant 'Baptisms' by non-Catholics, there is still a problem if the "minister" does not believe that Baptism is regenerative. Further, even if he does believe that it is regenerative, he may not be intending to do "as the Church does", and thus the so-called Baptism would be invalid as a result of that fact. With that being said, most non-Catholic "baptisms" are invalid because most (or all, considering "doing as the Church does") fall under one of the above categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 THe Church does not conditionally rebaptise people from mainline Churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 would you "please" stop putting "quotation marks" around words and "phrases" that you don't "like?" It makes it very "difficult" to "follow" your already tangled up "arguments." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 1 2004, 07:00 PM'] would you "please" stop putting "quotation marks" around words and "phrases" that you don't "like?" It makes it very "difficult" to "follow" your already tangled up "arguments." [/quote] "no"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Please practice charity. I put quotation marks around false concepts of a certain thing. I will not call an invalid, heretical "Baptism" an actual Baptism. It is not a Baptism. It is a symbol, and it does not regenerate the individual. The same goes for other concepts. The only reason I dislike this practice (using quotation marks) is that it is informal. Perhaps I will simply preface the word with "so-called" from now on, if that would help. As for the actual argument, this is simply not true. The Church has always conditionally baptized any converts, even those from mainline protestant religions. The exception may be the Eastern schismatics, but I am not sure. Certainly, the so-called Baptism by any heretic who does not believe that Baptism is regenerative would be considered invalid, and the person would be conditionally baptized. Please provide documentation that the Church did not conditionally baptize protestants before Vatican II (even those from mainline protestant religions). I will look for some information, possibly from Catholic Encyclopedia, on the matter, but I know the Church's practice (at least in the 40s and 50s) because there are several members of my parish who converted before Vatican II and were required to receive conditional Baptisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 All I was saying was (and now I'm not sure which of you I was addressing) that it's difficult enough to follow what you are trying to say. Adding quotation marks around words that you believe to referred to so-called things makes it more so. I just think it is unnecessary to put quotes around words such as church, baptism, ministers and the like. We are all quite aware that you do not view them as real. If you thought I was uncharitable, I appoligize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:25 PM'] Please practice charity. I put quotation marks around false concepts of a certain thing. I will not call an invalid, heretical "Baptism" an actual Baptism. It is not a Baptism. It is a symbol, and it does not regenerate the individual. The same goes for other concepts. The only reason I dislike this practice (using quotation marks) is that it is informal. Perhaps I will simply preface the word with "so-called" from now on, if that would help. As for the actual argument, this is simply not true. The Church has always conditionally baptized any converts, even those from mainline protestant religions. The exception may be the Eastern schismatics, but I am not sure. Certainly, the so-called Baptism by any heretic who does not believe that Baptism is regenerative would be considered invalid, and the person would be conditionally baptized. Please provide documentation that the Church did not conditionally baptize protestants before Vatican II (even those from mainline protestant religions). I will look for some information, possibly from Catholic Encyclopedia, on the matter, but I know the Church's practice (at least in the 40s and 50s) because there are several members of my parish who converted before Vatican II and were required to receive conditional Baptisms. [/quote] We are not talking about what the Church did 50 years ago, we are talking about what the Church does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 (edited) Thank you, homeschoolmom. The reason I do not like to recognize those terms (when referring to non-Catholics) is that those are Catholic names, e.g., Church, minister, etc. I suppose I can use the term preacher as a substitute for minister, maybe. I will try to be more concise and more clear in future writing. Cmom, [i]I[/i] am referring to what the Church has consistently practiced throughout Her entire history. My reference to what was done 50 and 60 years ago is from personal, direct knowledge. I have already called into question the current practice, calling it false Ecumenism, so I am not interested in what the common practice is among American parishes, which seems to be the realm of your comments. My whole point is that the current practice is scandalous, imprudent, and sinful. I already know the practice of the members of the Church in America. I am not content with simply recognizing the practice and accepting it. I feel it is necessary to understand and critique the reasons for the practice. The fact that the Church has always conditionally baptized converts throughout Her history (and with good reason, which I gave) is proof enough that the current practice is erroneous, especially considering the fact that the current practice has not been substantiated with logic. Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:00 PM'] would you "please" stop putting "quotation marks" around words and "phrases" that you don't "like?" It makes it very "difficult" to "follow" your already tangled up "arguments." [/quote] Maybe you should take some reading courses. I suppose when a person constantly writes sentences with only one clause it can become difficult to follow more complex sentences; nevertheless, I remember in 4th grade going over simple and complex sentences. Have your children not gotten to that level of homeschool yet? Maybe you would do well to re-read it yourself. (I hope that didn't come off as uncharitable, which is how your comment came off to me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:24 PM'] Maybe you should take some reading courses. I suppose when a person constantly writes sentences with only one clause it can become difficult to follow more complex sentences; nevertheless, I remember in 4th grade going over simple and complex sentences. Have your children not gotten to that level of homeschool yet? Maybe you would do well to re-read it yourself. (I hope that didn't come off as uncharitable, which is how your comment came off to me.) [/quote] I believe I appologized for being uncharitable. However, my point, if you read my appology, was that quotation marks make it more difficult (ie they are distracting). I am trying to actually read what you post, rather than skim it. If you want people to read your posts, it would be pleasent if you actually made it easier. I'm not asking you to do away with your writing style-- I'm fine with that. Please go back and read what I said earlier. And please don't EVER mention or allude to my homeschooling or my children again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:24 PM'] Maybe you should take some reading courses. I suppose when a person constantly writes sentences with only one clause it can become difficult to follow more complex sentences; nevertheless, I remember in 4th grade going over simple and complex sentences. Have your children not gotten to that level of homeschool yet? Maybe you would do well to re-read it yourself. (I hope that didn't come off as uncharitable, which is how your comment came off to me.) [/quote] I'm sure this doesn't break any phurum rules... but it's just mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:24 PM'] Maybe you should take some reading courses. I suppose when a person constantly writes sentences with only one clause it can become difficult to follow more complex sentences; nevertheless, I remember in 4th grade going over simple and complex sentences. Have your children not gotten to that level of homeschool yet? Maybe you would do well to re-read it yourself. (I hope that didn't come off as uncharitable, which is how your comment came off to me.) [/quote] This is highly insulting. You should apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:47 PM'] ... My reference to what was done 50 and 60 years ago is from personal, direct knowledge. ... [/quote] You were there? I didn't think you were that old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:10 PM'] You were there? I didn't think you were that old. [/quote] Amarkich is my brother if you didn't know--we know people from our church who lived and converted at that time. We have spoken to them directly. I think he made that clear in what he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts