Author Topic: Baptism and the remission of sins (Read 1401 times)

Stephen Francis · « **on:** June 24, 2013, 08:41:33 AM »

Having been raised Prot, I am very aware of the doctrine of baptism as a symbolic ordinance rather than as a Sacrament. I am wondering if anyone has any background on when this false view of baptism began to be put forward. Growing up, it was assumed by our group that one SHOULD be baptized as a public act of faith but that dying without baptism was essentially no big deal. I never knew anyone personally who believed that baptism was actually for the remission of sins.

Interestingly, I was speaking in front of a large number of Protestants recently, and I had occasion to quote St. Peter's words in the second chapter of the Acts regarding baptism FOR the forgiveness of sins. Later that day, a Prot minister couldn't have hurried fast enough to try and clarify that they believe baptism is a symbol of what has ALREADY happened and is in no way required or salvific.

How far back in the Church's history were there any controversies surrounding the efficacy of baptism? Did any Catholics hold to any view other than a sacramental one, or has that view always been the property of heretics?

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2013, 08:53:59 AM »

I'm sure you have, but in case you haven't:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2013, 02:08:06 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Later that day, a Prot minister couldn't have hurried fast enough to try and clarify that they believe baptism is a symbol of what has ALREADY happened and is in no way required or salvific.

I wonder if believing this, if their baptism would be valid.

Binechi · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2013, 02:34:27 PM »

This may help

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ?

A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5]

Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

Binechi · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2013, 02:46:03 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stephen Francis
Later that day, a Prot minister couldn't have hurried fast enough to try and clarify that they believe baptism is a symbol of what has ALREADY happened and is in no way required or salvific.

I wonder if believing this, if their baptism would be valid.

I agree, But what are the requirements of a Sacrament. Form , Matter and itention. Reading your comment above, did the minister have the right intention and say the right words. Doesn t sound like it , I would be off to a good Tradition Priest, for a "Conditional Baptism". Something to consider.
:confused1:

songbird · « **Reply #5 on:** June 24, 2013, 06:56:56 PM »

Those who are not catholic, see baptism as an initiation. those not catholic, think that Christ, when he died took away ALL sin of men. And end of story. Protestants are of this thinking. So, no confessions for them!

Catholic's know the mystery is no mystery, that when Christ died it was to open the gates of heaven and give man a chance for heaven. HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD is in ALL the sacraments and that includes baptism. His Blood is saving! A Big difference from the way Protestants think. They think that we as catholics, keep crucifing Christ day after day.

Unless you have My Flesh and Blood, you can not have life within you. Makes sense to a Catholic, but how do the Protestants see that.

Jack-in-the-box was a toy made by protestants to make fun of Christ in the tabernacle. And the latin words at consecration of the Mass was made fun of and they called in Hocus Pocus!

I would be careful of the company you keep. If you have troubles in how to answer questions of your own faith, where does that put you?

Frances · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2013, 12:17:15 PM »

Songbird- Where did you get your info. about the jack-in-the-box? I'm not disputing you, but have honestly never heard such a thing before.

songbird · « **Reply #7 on:** June 25, 2013, 03:42:45 PM »

I found it on google under "popery". I'll see if I can pull up. I had it on this forum once before.

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** June 25, 2013, 06:22:41 PM »

I am sorry, I am trying very hard to find it again. I did when Jack-in-the-box posted here. I can find hocus pocus without a problem. And that is a blasphemy of Hoc est corpus to this day. I was told by a nun that "hocus pocus" were words also put on the Jack-in-the-box. I read it and thought that I read it in "The shadow of the Pope" which all the popery and killing of catholics from England and in the USA. I sure hope to find it. I thought that this last time of looking it up I found it by getting the history of the toy and then I do remember googling transubstantiation. I am still have problems with getting a origin of the toy. Like I said, I had no problems getting in a year or so ago. Popery was another word I used and still I get walls. I will keep trying. It was understood that it was used for political matters to poke fun and it was understood that the pilgrims/protestants made the toy to make fun of Christ in the tabernacle. That is the way I read it.

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** June 29, 2013, 09:05:36 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stephen Francis
Later that day, a Prot minister couldn't have hurried fast enough to try and clarify that they believe baptism is a symbol of what has ALREADY happened and is in no way required or salvific.

I wonder if believing this, if their baptism would be valid.

I have often wondered this as well. I can see how an Orthodox baptism is valid, or even a Lutheran or Anglican one. But this us harder to accept.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:29:47 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stephen Francis
Later that day, a Prot minister couldn't have hurried fast enough to try and clarify that they believe baptism is a symbol of what has ALREADY happened and is in no way required or salvific.

I wonder if believing this, if their baptism would be valid.

Yes, it's valid - but illicit.

The Church has always presumed validity for prot baptisms unless proven otherwise.

songbird · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2013, 02:49:41 PM »

Presumption is a sin. what church, of CHrist or of man?

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2013, 03:36:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I wonder if believing this, if their baptism would be valid.
Yes, it's valid - but illicit.

The Church has always presumed validity for prot baptisms unless proven otherwise.

That's good, then, so there is a greater chance for more people to be saved. In the past I have worried about the validity of my own baptism because it was done by a Novus Ordo heretic, but I guess it would probably still be valid.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2013, 04:15:33 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Presumption is a sin. what church, of CHrist or of man?

Like prot marriages, their baptisms are always presumed valid unless proven otherwise.

Aside from quoting Trent, Pope Leo XIII said:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.

songbird · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2013, 08:19:01 PM »

Do protestants believe in original sin? That is the intent of Baptism and I don't think that Protestants baptize babies. So, protestants intent would not be to remove original sin. What is their intent? Protestants wait til the person is ready to take on a belief. So, you see, their baptism has nothing to do with removing original sin. It is to initiate. Personally, I would not be satisfied with the so-called sprinkling of any sect, except the Catholic Church. New Order is trying to get away from the babies being baptized. Their Deacons are taught that a person should wait til they understand the belief they are about to take on.