Talking bad about Protestants

[Sojourner]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:14 PM'] 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. [/quote]
I did know that, actually. He said "personal, direct knowledge" which would in general imply actually having witnessed something. For example, I can talk to a police officer about an accident that he or she handled, but unless I saw the accident myself I can't call it personal, direct knowledge. In most circumstances in a courtroom, it would be called "hearsay".

[Sojourner]

And you still owe HSmom an apology.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:14 PM'] 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. [/quote]
so thats what makes your information INFALLIBLE, right?

not like they, being HUMAN, could have DISTORTED the facts, RIGHT?

(i don't believe in "these"...its against my religion...hahahaha)

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:22 PM'] I did know that, actually. He said "personal, direct knowledge" which would in general imply actually having witnessed something. For example, I can talk to a police officer about an accident that he or she handled, but unless I saw the accident myself I can't call it personal, direct knowledge. In most circumstances in a courtroom, it would be called "hearsay". [/quote]
If you were writing a paper, it would be called a primary source-- let's drop the semantics... the information is true, whether or not he worded it to your liking.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:23 PM'] And you still owe HSmom an apology. [/quote]
...for?

I said at the end: I hope this doesn't come off as uncharitable, if it did, I'm sorry, but I made my intentions clear when I wrote it.

[amarkich]

Lumberjack, what?? I was talking to people about personal experiences.

In any event, this whole 3rd page is a deviation from the purpose of the thread. To everyone: Let's get over the semantical issues. My comments were sufficiently clear earlier. It is pointless to argue over these slight matters. Shall we continue with the purpose of the thread?

I think the purpose of the thread might actually be dead, but if anyone (especially Sojourner) would like to comment on conditional Baptism, I would like to discuss this. Sojourner, will you ask your priest about a conditional Baptism and the reasons for not having one? As far as I can see (and as far as anyone has said), there is absolutely [b]no[/b] reason to omit a conditional Baptism. I still maintain that it is scandalous, imprudent, and sinful. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the omitting of a conditional Baptism, as this seems to be a common practice by most NO churches.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:24 PM'] If you were writing a paper, it would be called a primary source-- let's drop the semantics... the information is true, whether or not he worded it to your liking. [/quote]
CC, I know from reading yours and your brothers previous posts that the two of you and I come from very different perspectives, and I seriously doubt that we'll come to any sort of agreement on the question of whether or not my baptism as an infant was valid.

I agree with the Catechism when it says "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: 'For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.'
'Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.'"

Of course there is a question about what constitutes a "proper" baptism. Personally, I see that God began working in my life as an infant, eventually drawing me in to full communion with the Church.

But then again, why should you care what I think anyway? I'm a woman, and I work outside the home and want to be paid fairly for it, and I vote.

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/seia/agreed.htm"]From the U.S. Catholic Bishops' site (quoted in part): [/url]

[quote]From the fifth-century writings of St. Augustine on the Donatist Schism, the Latin tradition has been able to draw on a clearly articulated rationale for recognizing the validity, though not necessarily the fruitfulness, of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church. This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then. Nevertheless, rebaptism continued to be practiced on the eastern frontiers of Catholic Europe in Poland and the Balkans - contrary to Roman policy - well into the seventeenth century. In addition, the practice of "conditional baptism," a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person's earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of "dissident" Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe. Vatican II, however, was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII"]From New Advent (also quoted in part): [/url]
[quote]From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. [/quote]

[amarkich]

Sojourner, I still see no reason in your post to indicate that a conditional Baptism should not be administered. There is absolutely no harm in doing it but much harm could result in failing to do it. The idea that we should not have conditional Baptisms is problematic both practically and theologically insofar as it is a practical denial of the necessity of Baptism and a practice of false Ecumenism on the part of those pastors who fail to administer conditional Baptism to converts. Further, it is true that I have little regard for the theological teachings of those who are not authoritative Catholic sources, e.g., Councils, Popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, etc., and much less do I heed the theological opinions of women, but that is not to say that I do not wish to hear your reasoning behind a certain action. I asked a question of you, and as a result, I expected an answer, which I will consider and respect insofar as it is reasonable.


The problem, however, is not with what constitutes a proper Baptism but with what constitutes a valid Baptism. A Baptism by a non-Catholic is not proper, but it might be valid if certain requirements are met. The problem occurs when there is not a valid Baptism and the one who is supposedly baptized then receives the Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist, without paying heed to the fact that the Baptism may have been invalid and without taking caution in having a conditional Baptism. As for your comments about a woman's place, I believe those are better centered in another thread. I believe there is a thread in Open Mic discussing women, but if you are interested in some kind of debatable discussion, I would be interested if you opened a thread in the Debate Table.

Edit: Thank you for those sources. I think they substantiate my earlier claims that most non-Catholic Baptisms are invalid and that converts should be conditionally baptized. God bless.

Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Dec 1 2004, 04:47 PM'] . Further, it is true that I have little regard for the theological teachings of those who are not authoritative Catholic sources, e.g., Councils, Popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, etc., and much less do I heed the theological opinions of women, but that is not to say that I do not wish to hear your reasoning behind a certain action. God bless. [/quote]
I suppose you never heard of St Teresa of Avila, St Theresa of Liseaux, or St Catherine have you?

[amarkich]

They are not theological Doctors. They were teachers but not in the same way as the other Doctors. They were teachers by holiness. I would make the point that none of them would have intended or expected to be named Doctor of the Church, for various reasons. But, in any event, I was referring to laymen in that comment: "I have little regard for the theological teachings of those who are not authoritative Catholic sources." I said that I had less regard for the opinions of women. As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider the writings of those three holy Saints to be a theological teaching. They are examples of holiness; they are not theologians. They can still be teachers by example, but that does not mean they are theologians.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:15 PM'] They are not theological Doctors. They were teachers but not in the same way as the other Doctors. They were teachers by holiness. I would make the point that none of them would have intended or expected to be named Doctor of the Church, for various reasons. But, in any event, I was referring to laymen in that comment: "I have little regard for the theological teachings of those who are not authoritative Catholic sources." I said that I had less regard for the opinions of women. As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider the writings of those three holy Saints to be a theological teaching. They are examples of holiness; they are not theologians. They can still be teachers by example, but that does not mean they are theologians. [/quote]
You need to read more. I think they were heavy on Theology....

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Dec 1 2004, 05:15 PM'] They are not theological Doctors. They were teachers but not in the same way as the other Doctors. They were teachers by holiness. I would make the point that none of them would have intended or expected to be named Doctor of the Church, for various reasons. But, in any event, I was referring to laymen in that comment: "I have little regard for the theological teachings of those who are not authoritative Catholic sources." I said that I had less regard for the opinions of women. As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider the writings of those three holy Saints to be a theological teaching. They are examples of holiness; they are not theologians. They can still be teachers by example, but that does not mean they are theologians. [/quote]
Have you read them?

[amarkich]

My point was not that they did not write about theology at all (or, even less, that they did not understand theology). My point is that they are doctors because of their holiness, not their theology, otherwise, that means a woman has become a teacher in the Church, which has been denied as possible by Scripture, Tradition, and Catholicism in general. The fact that no woman was even made a Doctor until after Vatican II is not surprising.

By the way, I have not read anything from any of those three, but I have read some of Saint Catherine of Genoa's [i]Treatise on Purgatory[/i], so I do not claim that women cannot write on theological matters at all; I simply was saying that women are not Teachers in the Church. A Doctor is a Teacher; ergo, the three women Doctors are Doctors of holiness not theology. Otherwise, a woman has been made a Teacher in the Church.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm closing this thread.

Its nothing but three pages of arguing if its ok to make fun of protestants or not. No, its not ok. Yes, we can and should disagree with them and work to correct their errors but making fun of people is hardly charitable or productive.

I've also seen a couple phrases which I feel are personal attacks, but since I'm closing the thread anyway, the other mods have seen fit to leave them be, and they were not reported I'll leave them.