I never meant to imply that Confirmation is required to be a Christian…of course, that is not the case at all.
I think this is where some of the understanding breaks down. I only recently figured this out here on the Dope, so you can see my public idiocy if you look it up. To a Mormon, the question of who does the baptism is paramount. An LDS baptism can only be done by someone with the priesthood authority to perform it; it’s not valid otherwise. And for us, the priesthood is part of what you call the Apostolic Succession. I was gobsmacked (really, utterly blown away) to find that baptism is not an ordinance that requires the priesthood in the RCC; anyone can do it. So to Mormons, it seems very strange that a church that believes in Apostolic Succession and the importance of priesthood authority would accept baptisms from churches that have ‘priesthood of believers’ doctrine or who are considered not to be part of the succession.
But, to make my statement more clear…here is a Catholic website that explains Confirmation as follows:
It may surprise you to know that Der Trihs and I, despite both being godless heathen liberals, do not agree 100% on everything. But his central point–that it really doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t call themselves Christian and any attempt to limit same reeks of sour grapes–is what I was talking about.
Let me ask you: Who, other than those who claim to believe in Jesus as the Christ and savior, would call themselves Christian?
This seems about right to me - despite the gratuitously offensive “bullshit” remark.
I suspect this has to do with the importance of baptism in the RCC. Until recently, they have taught that baptism is essential for salvation. It’s not always possible to have a priest when & where you need one, therefore, it’s possible for anyone to do it in a pinch (which is not to say it’s ideal…even though I could have done our kids’ baptisms at home, we of course took them to church and had a priest do it).
People for whom the definition of Christian does not include the notion that Jesus Christ is their savior.
Oh, I can certainly see where it came from. If you believe that an infant will go to hell or limbo if it dies without baptism, then it becomes necessary to allow anyone to perform the baptism in a pinch, especially back in the old days when babies didn’t routinely live through birth (and I do realize the RCC has changed that position on infant death now, but I’m speaking of when it did have that belief).
Funny, really–although we assert that baptism is essential for salvation, we don’t allow any exceptions for baptism the way Catholics do and we’re much stricter about the circumstances of any baptism, we also don’t believe in original sin or that death is the end of your chances to become a Christian, so we don’t follow the same logic at all.
If you want to really blow your mind, that’s literally anyone: It’s not even restricted to other Christians. An atheist can perform a valid baptism, provided that a genuine intent to baptize is present. An ordained priest is the licit minister of baptism, though, which means that if it’s possible to get a priest to do the baptism, one should.
Each of the seven Catholic sacraments has different rules on who can/should administer it. Baptism can be done by anyone, but should be done by a priest. Confirmation is ordinarily administered by a bishop or the equivalent, but bishops can and usually do allow priests to do it at Easter Vigil services (the traditional time for adult entry into the Church). Reconciliation and Annointing of the Sick can only be performed by a priest, but anyone can hear confessions, just not sacramentally. The Sacrament of Matrimony, contrary to popular belief, is not administered by a priest at all, but by the couple getting married, who administer the sacrament to each other. Holy Orders (by which a person becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop) can be administered only by a bishop. And the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist can only be administered by a priest.
Wow. I guess that makes sense though; anyone means anyone.
So, is a bishop still a priest, or do you have to be only a priest to do the Eucharist? Can a cardinal do it?
Mormons have pretty much the same system–a priest blesses the eucharist and can baptize, but you have to be an elder to do a confirmation or bless the sick, and so on. Each office can ordain a person to that office–an elder can ordain an elder, etc. (equivalent of holy orders). Each office contains all the others in it, though, so a bishop can bless the eucharist too. There’s a whole complex list in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Basically, Catholics don’t view baptism as being the most important of the Sacraments: the Eucharist is
I am Roman Catholic and I just wanted to state that this is 100% accurate. Our entire mass is considered a “celebration of the Eucharist.” This is what principly seperates us from Protestants.
I have a very good friend who was brought up Baptist although he is more non-denominational. He has problems with both Mormons and Catholics. More with Mormons though. Me? I dont know Mormonism, but if they except Jesus as the only path to God then they are Christians in my view. I have noticed that Protestant religions, generally speaking, jockey alot for position.
For example; someone who follows what he feels is Jesus’s philosophy, but doesn’t believe he worked miracles or was a savior, and perhaps not even in a God would qualify as Christian, if he called himself one.