Presbyterians Think Of Changing 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit'

[son_of_angels]

As a convert from the Baptist faith, you are quite wrong in your interpretation of "intention." Baptists do not believe in any sacraments or sacramental action whatsoever, but their baptisms are recognized as valid by the Holy Catholic Church. "Intention" only means that the person performing the Sacrament meant to perform what is classified as a Baptism, in the name of the proper God (the Trinity) for the person on whom the sacrament is conferred. In the same way, a person having a flawed understanding of the Eucharist, but validly ordained and using the Words of Consecration (as must have happened often before the Lateran Council) would still validly bring about the presence of the Eucharist, though into a grave abuse, provided they actually intended to perform what is classified as the Eucharist.

Also, having attended a Calvinist college for 2 years (with 2 more to go), I can definitely answer in the affirmative that they believe in original sin.

Edited June 25, 2006 by son_of_angels

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Michael' post='1011757' date='Jun 24 2006, 09:33 PM']
Most Presbyterian Baptisms would not be valid anyway. For a baptism (or any Sacrament) to be valid, three things are required.

1. Matter
2. Form
3. [b]Intention[/b]

It would probably be safe to say that Presbyterians do not have the correct intention when they baptize. Do they believe that Baptism is 'A Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church'? I doubt they believe in original sin, and most Protestants believe that Baptism is just a 'visible sign' of belonging to the Church. (Not that they are in the Church, obviously, the True Church is the Catholic Church).

Anyway, Presbyterians are heretics!
[/quote]

Wrong. Presbyterian baptisms are accepted as valid christian baptisms by the Catholic Church. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Presbyterians do not have the fullness of Truth, because they are not in the Catholic church, but that does not make them heretics, it makes them misinformed.

[michaelorapronobis]

Where intenition for baptism is doubtful, catechumens entering the Catholic Church are conditionally baptised: the formula being: 'Si non es baptizatus (-a), ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti'. 'If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Okay, so Presbyterians are material heretics, not formal heretics (like approx. 70% of American Catholics who do not believe in the Real Prescence). They are indeed misinformed, and if they trust in Christ and have the desire to belong to the Church, but do not realise that the Catholic Church is the One True Chruch, they [i]may[/i] be saved. The Church has always taught that 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' - 'Outside the Church there is no salvation'.

What the Church Says "There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved." --Pope Innocent III

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --Pope Boniface VIII, The Bull Unnam Sanctam 1302 A.D., Ex cathedra.

"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have eternal life." --Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino 1441 A.D., Ex cathedra.

Sacred Scripture teaches:

"That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me." --John 17:21

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism." --Ephesians 4:3-5

We are called to be one in belief, and practice. "The Church is One because all her members agree in one Faith, have all the same Sacrifice and Sacraments, and are all united under one Head" (Catechism 95). Presbyterians are therefore not part of the Church, as they have no Sacraments and no Sacrifice, and do not believe the same Faith as we Catholics do.

As for them being our brothers and sisters in Christ, how can they claim to be so when they are outside of the Church? You might as well say that Muslims are our 'brothers and sisters in Christ' because they accept Him as a prophet. But the fact remains that unless they become part of the Holy Catholic Church, they cannot be saved and only God knows their fate.

[cmotherofpirl]

THEY are our brothers and sisters in Christ because they are baptised christians , muslims are not. But of course you know this already.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Wrong. Presbyterian baptisms are accepted as valid christian baptisms by the Catholic Church. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Presbyterians do not have the fullness of Truth, because they are not in the Catholic church, but that does not make them heretics, it makes them misinformed. [/quote]

CMP,

I am surprized at this from you. The whole discussion early in the Church was whether the baptism of heretics was valid. The Church said (Pope Stephen I) that the baptism of heretics was valid. It no less made them heretics in declaring this. Whether or not they are validly baptized, they are still in fact heretics. It is up to God to judge whether they are formally (culpable) or materially (perhaps not culpable) so.

[cmotherofpirl]

Sorry, I was more responding to the part where Michael seems to just dismiss the presbyterians as heretics and not even christians.
I should never respond before I have had my caffeine.

[Sojourner]

I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic. As an infant, I received a Trinitarian baptism. When I was reconciled with the Catholic church, I provided a record of said baptism and I was not re-baptised. The church accepted the validity of my baptism.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1012379' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:19 AM']
CMP,

I am surprized at this from you. The whole discussion early in the Church was whether the baptism of heretics was valid. The Church said (Pope Stephen I) that the baptism of heretics was valid. It no less made them heretics in declaring this. Whether or not they are validly baptized, they are still in fact heretics. It is up to God to judge whether they are formally (culpable) or materially (perhaps not culpable) so.
[/quote]

Ah good. Have a cup a Joe on me.


[quote name='Sojourner' post='1012382' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:29 AM']
I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic. As an infant, I received a Trinitarian baptism. When I was reconciled with the Catholic church, I provided a record of said baptism and I was not re-baptised. The church accepted the validity of my baptism.
[/quote]

The question is not whether a past trinitarian formula would be valid. The question is whether a baptism in the name of Mother God, Child womb, or whatever would be a valid baptism. I think it very likely it would be rejected by the Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1012465' date='Jun 26 2006, 11:34 AM']
Ah good. Have a cup a Joe on me.
The question is not whether a past trinitarian formula would be valid. The question is whether a baptism in the name of Mother God, Child womb, or whatever would be a valid baptism. I think it very likely it would be rejected by the Church.
[/quote]
At one point some priests did baptise catholics with the "sanctifier" version and had to rebaptise the kids later.

[homeschoolmom]

could it be any clearer? Father, Son, Holy Spirit!

[son_of_angels]

As I said earlier, while Presbyterians, taken simply as such, may on the whole be material heretics, having never themselves willfully committed the sin of heresy, it is important to note that THIS declaration, and all who agree with it, is an act of FORMAL HERESY by those who adopt it, since they have no reason to be inculpably ignorant. They have defended the Trinitarian formula, and been instructed properly in its meaning, as far as possible (the saying "we reject nothing that is holy and true" by VII leaves this a possibility), and therefore, even if they do not know, they SHOULD know their wrongfulness. Ergo those who adopt these beliefs would, barring actual moral incapacity, are FORMAL HERETICS in grave sin, objectively speaking.

[michaelorapronobis]

What about 'Holy Ghost'? Why do modern Catholics and some Protestants use 'Holy Spirit' instead? What is the difference between 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit?'

[Socrates]

[quote name='Michael' post='1012740' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:22 PM']
What about 'Holy Ghost'? Why do modern Catholics and some Protestants use 'Holy Spirit' instead? What is the difference between 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit?'
[/quote]
None really. Both mean the same thing. "Ghost" is simply a more archaic word for "Spirit." (It had not yet become mostly associated with spirits of the dead, as it has in modern times.) Both originally meant "breath" as in "breath of life."

Both terms are acceptable; one just uses more modern language.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Socrates

[son_of_angels]

"Ghost" is simply a more English word for the Latin word "Spiritus." Spirit is a much more direct word from Latin.