The Pope’s “job” is to clarify Church doctrine, not administer some kind of touchy-feely platitude. If the Pope believes this to be true (and we’re talking about a belief system here) it’s his duty as God’s spokesperson on earth to make it clear.
n.b.: I’m an atheist and, in all honesty, think this stuff is a load of crap. But it’s their church, and they get to say what the rules are. If you don’t like, tough shit. There’s a Pit thread to express disappointment if that’s what you want to do, but arguing that the Church should do “X” is ridiculous. The Church is a self-defined organization.
I’m sure this only applies to Baptism. It is because the RCC believes in ONE baptism. Here is some info about it. The article is long, but if you scroll down to section VIII, it explains the history of this issue. The last bit of that section reads:
As long as the denomination is considered a valid Christian one by the RCC, then the baptism is considered valid as well. I have several friends who converted after having been raised various other denominations, and none of them were re-baptised.
I think, in RCC doctrine, baptism is the one sacrament that does not have be administered by an ordained priest in apostolic succession. Any baptized person can baptize.
This is true. I doubt you would find many Catholics who hadn’t been told at least once that they need to “become Christian,” or that they were going to Hell because they are Catholic.
Baptism is a sacrament, but according to the RCC, it’s not a sacrament that requires ordination to perform. The RCC will, though, in the case of converts, often perform a “conditional baptism”, which is basically saying, “In case you weren’t validly baptized before, you are now.”
The RCC recognizes any baptism that was performed in the Trinitarian mode with an intent to enter the person into the rolls of Christianity–even, ironically, if it was performed by a non-believer. The issues of sacraments, generally, is a bit more complex, (and often–not always–has more to do with the positions and attitudes of the non-Catholic group than with Catholic theology). The majority of Protestant denominations do not accept the RCC position on sacraments, so it tends to be simply a mutual agreement to disagree. The apostolic succession issue that the RCC holds up against the Anglican communion interferes with recognition of those sacraments that require an ordained minister: Holy Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance/Reconciliation, and Anointing, but Baptism is not restricted to an ordained minister and Matrimony is performed by the couple, so those are accepted.
There are a (very) few Protestant groups who do not use the Trinitarian form, (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), but the RCC recognizes the baptisms of the majority who follow the more common rite.
That’s what I was taught as a kid. Any Baptized Catholic can Baptize another person. So as long as you can trace your Baptism back to some Catholic at some time or another, you’re good to go. And since all (or most) of the Protestant Churches still practice Baptism, and since all (or most) of them trace their roots back to a Catholic denomination at some point, most Protestants are still “Baptized” in the eyes of the Church.
Maybe someone more versed in Catholic theology can tell me if my memory is correct or not.
Damn straight. Catholics will loudly whine about “anti-Catholic bias” at the drop of a miter. The fact that they can arrogantly dismiss the validity of other denominations and then turn around and play the victim when someone disputes their dogma or decries their political influence is rank hypocrisy.
‘Anti-Catholic bias’ went a bit beyond that. And FWIW, I’ve heard what Protestants call Catholics AND the Pope, especially in countries other than the US…and it makes the Pope’s statement about their churches not being REAL churches seem pretty freaking mild.
Personally, as an agnostic I find the whole issue pretty silly to be honest…
Maybe you should let the last few Popes, who have traveled the world administering touch-feely platitudes in stadia about that. Or have they been lecturing on the minutia of church doctrine to the thousands of faithful attending?
Since they are leaders of the Church, a few platitudes about brotherhood are fine with me.
You should also note, then, that for all his spreading of good feeling, Pope John Paul II never said anything close to proclaiming that he believed Protestantism was just as good as Catholicism.
Now that I know **tomndebb’s ** online, I want to restate my question – ever heard of an ecumenical agreement among the Roman Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches agreeing to administer communion to each other’s communicants? I’m thinking late 1970s, early 1980s.
I don’t understand all this rancor over the frigging Pope. He is *supposed * to proselytize and spread the Gospel, including to Jews. That is his calling. He is *supposed * to chastise Christians whom he believes have gone astray. That’s his frigging job. I mean damn, it’s not like he’s calling for a jihad or anything. He’s not leading mobs of people calling on them to throw bombs or commit suicide while murdering others. How about a sense of proportion, people? Jesus.
And we Protestants, who regard him as a spiritual equal (only with a much greater ability to get people to pay attention to his views), are chastising him right back. Seems proportionate to me.
Names for sides, dude; they weren’t fighting over the religion, they were fighting over which tribe the other one was in. You might as well have called the fighting between the Hutus and Tutsis a religious conflict.
Babble. Define your terms. Define what you mean by “as good” and your measure of “few things”. Show that where the excuse of religion is removed the difference is “large”. Or admit that you’re just ranting, as usual.
Now, put that thing back in the field, it keeps the crows away.
As the “churches” I’ve been involved with have neither had bishops nor ordained priests, I think we’ll be ok with those non-existant people being not recognized as valid by a guy who we don’t look to as an authority.
Especially since we’ve been pretty much ok with this for centuries, now.
‘Anti-Catholic bias’ went a bit beyond that. And FWIW, I’ve heard what Protestants call Catholics AND the Pope, especially in countries other than the US…and it makes the Pope’s statement about their churches not being REAL churches seem pretty freaking mild.