# St. Januarius, Miracles, and the Proof of God. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2018, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639 "2018-09-20T16:27:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/721 "2018-10-10T21:01:34Z")
1 Corinthians 11:27 does not prohibit this under _Sola Scriptura_ and it is only through the sketchy claims of being the “one true church” through succession and the "_two distinct modes of transmission"_ this is justified. > [@](#): > > The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged.” And your claim that the Roman church accepts all all Trinitarian baptisms as valid does not match up with the Canon Law [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/\_\_P32.HTM](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P32.HTM) > **[Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.html)** > > Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents Canon 844.4 clearly presents the restrictions, and the exception you are claiming allows for it is ironically related to the same _schism_ that would invalidate your claims. Byzantium was the only vestige of the Holy Roman Empire after the fall of Rome and Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne lead to the split. Although I expect a response that will hand wave away that paradox of Apostolic succession and also ignoring the earlier challenges with earlier splits. How convenient that one of the “two distinct modes of transmission” was able to claim location and not succession to claim to be the one true church. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/722 "2018-10-10T21:06:50Z")
To clarify even that the above intent wasn’t implemented. inter-Communion does not exist between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/723 "2018-10-10T21:13:04Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > 1 Corinthians 11:27 does not prohibit this under _Sola Scriptura_ and it is only through the sketchy claims of being the “one true church” through succession and the "_two distinct modes of transmission"_ this is justified. I don’t know what you’re arguing for, but if you’re using Sola Scriptura as its basis, then you won’t get anywhere. Sola Scriptura is a logical contradiction and self-defeating. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And your claim that the Roman church accepts all all Trinitarian baptisms as valid does not match up with the Canon Law Okay, so there are restrictions and exceptions. My claim still stands. I was baptized in a Protestant church as a child, and when I joined the Catholic Church my baptism was accepted as valid, and I did not need to be “re-baptized”. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Canon 844.4 clearly presents the restrictions, and the exception you are claiming allows for it is ironically related to the same _schism_ that would invalidate your claims. > > Byzantium was the only vestige of the Holy Roman Empire after the fall of Rome and Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne lead to the split. > > Although I expect a response that will hand wave away that paradox of Apostolic succession and also ignoring the earlier challenges with earlier splits. > > How convenient that one of the “two distinct modes of transmission” was able to claim location and not succession to claim to be the one true church. I’m having a hard time following you here. ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/724 "2018-10-10T21:22:53Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > inter-Communion does not exist between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. The Catholic Church allows Orthodox believers to receive Communion, although Orthodox metropolitans/bishops may not approve. [Per USCCB](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/725 "2018-10-10T21:26:19Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And your claim that the Roman church accepts all all Trinitarian baptisms as valid does not match up with the Canon Law > > [Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P32.HTM) > [Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM) > > Canon 844.4 clearly presents the restrictions, and the exception you are claiming allows for it is ironically related to the same _schism_ that would invalidate your claims. I am not sure what you are reading from which you infer that the RCC does not accept all Trinitarian Baptisms. The RCC does accept all Trinitarian baptisms and if one wishes to enter the RCC, one may only be accepted, not re-baptized, if one is Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and most other Christian denominations. The RCC states that there can only be one baptism in a person’s life and all those other denominations are treated as though their baptism is sufficient. There are other restrictions regarding reception of the sacraments, (such as accepting that they are sacraments), but Baptism is a go/no-go gauge for the sacraments, not the full set of qualifications. One may certainly challenge whether the RCC is using the proper approach on the question, (and I would never cite I Corinthians 11:27 on this point), but the recognition of baptism among other denominations is not the primary issue. **EscAlaMike** : the feud is int **ra** -Christian, not int **er** -Christian. And I would tend to avoid telling people how non-Catholics get something wrong if one is not intimately familiar with what the non-Catholics believe. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/726 "2018-10-10T21:26:42Z")
The real point is that any claim you have to direct agency before the First Council of Nicaea, which established deity of Christ and created the entire branch that the Roman Catholic church is based on are unsubstantiated. Your claims as to proof as to the Roman Catholic being the “correct” side of the various later schisms are unsubstantiated. And your claims to the Roman Catholic Church being the “one true church” are purely post 300 AD dogma and based on propaganda and not empirical data. Heck the only reason that there were only two major branches during the East West schism is because the rest had fallen to the Muslims. Rome was simply a mediator before that relationship soured, and your claim that it is rock hard direct gifting of power is not supported by the known history. Basically you are doing what most faithful do, once again resorting to circular logic. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/727 "2018-10-10T21:55:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not sure what you are reading from which you infer that the RCC does not accept all Trinitarian Baptisms. The RCC does accept all Trinitarian baptisms and if one wishes to enter the RCC, one may only be accepted, not re-baptized, if one is Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and most other Christian denominations. The RCC states that there can only be one baptism in a person’s life and all those other denominations are treated as though their baptism is sufficient. > There are other restrictions regarding reception of the sacraments, (such as accepting that they are sacraments), but Baptism is a go/no-go gauge for the sacraments, not the full set of qualifications. One may certainly challenge whether the RCC is using the proper approach on the question, (and I would never cite I Corinthians 11:27 on this point), but the recognition of baptism among other denominations is not the primary issue. > > **EscAlaMike** : the feud is int **ra** -Christian, not int **er** -Christian. > And I would tend to avoid telling people how non-Catholics get something wrong if one is not intimately familiar with what the non-Catholics believe. Trinitarian baptisms are not enough to drink some wine and eat some bread unless you are dieing, which was the claim, but let me cite a canon lawyer. > **[When Can Episcopalians Receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass?](https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07/09/when-can-episcopalians-receive-the-eucharist-at-a-catholic-mass/)** > > Q: A friend of mine told me that his pastor routinely admits Episcopalians to Holy Communion.  He explained that the local Episcopal church closes for several months, since it’s located in a resort… We can argue about what constitutes baptism and what relates to conversion and what was talked about with one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But in general declaring that the Catholic Church is the true faith has little difference outside of some oil and or water for us non-Christians. The baptism, confirmation, and the holy Eucharist track or the profession path are similar and avoid a huge discussion on what “validly baptized outside the Church” is. Technically LDS have Trinitarian Baptisms but often are Baptized depending on the local church’s reading of\> > [@](#): > > “Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.” Which ritual they have to follow is less important than the fact that they are often formerly asked to abjure the previous faith, and thus actively deny another form of the holy ghost etc…effectively denying the same apostolic Scriptures. The complex and country specific rules on what is “acceptable” do not change this. > **[Determining the Fact and Validity of Baptism - ACM RCIA](https://acmrcia.org/blog/determining-fact-and-validity-baptism/)** > > When a person seeks to become a Catholic, one of the Church's responsibilities is to determine whether the individual has been validly baptized. The same passages that lead other sects into accepting any baptism in the name of Christ are the same passages that cause RC to require documentation. But this is a side track. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/728 "2018-10-10T22:47:08Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Trinitarian baptisms are not enough to drink some wine and eat some bread unless you are dieing, which was the claim, but let me cite a canon lawyer. > > [When Can Episcopalians Receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy](http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07/09/when-can-episcopalians-receive-the-eucharist-at-a-catholic-mass/) > > We can argue about what constitutes baptism and what relates to conversion and what was talked about with one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. > > But in general declaring that the Catholic Church is the true faith has little difference outside of some oil and or water for us non-Christians. > > The baptism, confirmation, and the holy Eucharist track or the profession path are similar and avoid a huge discussion on what “validly baptized outside the Church” is. > > Technically LDS have Trinitarian Baptisms but often are Baptized depending on the local church’s reading of\> > > Which ritual they have to follow is less important than the fact that they are often formerly asked to abjure the previous faith, and thus actively deny another form of the holy ghost etc…effectively denying the same apostolic Scriptures. > > The complex and country specific rules on what is “acceptable” do not change this. > > [https://acmrcia.org/blog/determining-fact-and-validity-baptism](https://acmrcia.org/blog/determining-fact-and-validity-baptism) > > The same passages that lead other sects into accepting any baptism in the name of Christ are the same passages that cause RC to require documentation. > > But this is a side track. I am not sure why you quoted me to post this. You do not appear to be actually arguing with anything I have posted. The sequence was: **EscAlaMike** : “The Catholic Church accepts and recognizes all Trinitarian baptisms as valid, no matter which denomination it took place in.” **rat avatar** : “And your claim that the Roman church accepts all all Trinitarian baptisms as valid does not match up with the Canon Law” **tomndebb** : “I am not sure what you are reading from which you infer that the RCC does not accept all Trinitarian Baptisms.” It appears that you were conflating the acceptance of baptism with the rites and rules that surround communion with the church. (Given **EscAlaMike** ’s presentation, I can see where the conflation could occur.) My only point was that the baptism occurring in various Christian denominations is recognized as valid by the RCC. It is. Once one has been baptized in a recognized denomination, one cannot be re-baptized if converting to Catholicism because the valid baptism has already happened. Other aspects of being in communion are not dependent solely on baptism, but require other expressions of belief and action. This may look like so much nonsense to those outside (or even inside) the various Christian denominations, but that (baptism, not communion with the church) is the perspective of the RCC ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639/729 "2018-10-10T23:21:59Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > The early Church wrestled with these questions re: the nature of Jesus and settled them through Church councils. The declarations of the councils relied on the teachings of the earliest church fathers, many of whom studied directly under the apostles (such as Polycarp who studied under John and I believe Ignatius who studied under Peter). As you invoked Polycarp, here is a link where the Roman presbyters choose to observe Easter according to Peter and by Paul, despite the Polycrates arguably equally credible claim. Linus and the Catholic tradition along that line was not the only line with claims of legitimacy. [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene\_and\_Post-Nicene\_Fathers:\_Series\_II/Volume\_I/Church\_History\_of\_Eusebius/Book\_V/Chapter\_24](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_I/Church_History_of_Eusebius/Book_V/Chapter_24) The primacy of Peter and his successors and the further claim of papal primacy may logically work for you but is not and was not universally accepted. Many view Peter as a mediator and not a pope like authority. Irenaeus was mostly protecting the primacy claims of that line from the Gnostics, but he said that truth could be found in any of the Sees and was not specific to Rome. Ignatius was the first to really push a hard line and you don’t get the final “rock/church” literal meaning until Cyprian. Once again I think we have no agreement on _who won_ but I see a lot of documentation that points to a large amount of beliefs that are hardened into one line’s belief and that the narrative was created to create and protect papal primacy but little to see it the other way around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-januarius-miracles-and-the-proof-of-god/821639.md?page=36)