• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Beyond Baptism

phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Acts 8: 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit

Acts 19: While Apol′los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

These two verses sound like there is something beyond baptism. This sounds remarkably similar to the sacrament of Confirmation, does it not?
 
I see that and I think Pentacostal. Do Catholics speak in tongues (sincere question, I really don't know).
 
There is something beyond baptism by water. If the authorized servant of God who has the Melchizadech priesthood does not do the ordinance after baptism of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the baptism would be meaningless. That is the baptism by fire that purifies the soul, and if they keep their covenants and obey the Lord's commandments, they will have the spirit with them as a constant companion. This will lead them down the path towards perfection.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-7?lang=eng
 
When I was confirmed I don't remember speaking in tongues and the only prophesizing I did was about baseball.



phattonez said:
Acts 8: 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit

Acts 19: While Apol′los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

These two verses sound like there is something beyond baptism. This sounds remarkably similar to the sacrament of Confirmation, does it not?
Click to expand...
 
Van Basten said:
There are some.
Click to expand...

I absolutely don't doubt it but I agree with Phottenez that, while it does have a Biblical basis, it can be "nonsense" and for show. I'd like to think I'm open to the experience but, quite frankly, it would have to be completely authentic, like nobody would be more surprised than me that it happened.
 
X Factor said:
I absolutely don't doubt it but I agree with Phottenez that, while it does have a Biblical basis, it can be "nonsense" and for show. I'd like to think I'm open to the experience but, quite frankly, it would have to be completely authentic, like nobody would be more surprised than me that it happened.
Click to expand...

The experience is amazing as I've experienced it personally, but as you said, there are devious people in the world that would like to put on a show. Same thing goes for miracles. Anyway, that's between you and God.
 
TobyOne said:
When I was confirmed I don't remember speaking in tongues and the only prophesizing I did was about baseball.
Click to expand...

It seems that you had the proper disposition for confirmation, then. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
 
It was a celebration because it meant the end of 7 years of CCD. Praise Jesus.


phattonez said:
It seems that you had the proper disposition for confirmation, then. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
It was a celebration because it meant the end of 7 years of CCD. Praise Jesus.
Click to expand...

Knowing the state of many CCD programs (at least in this country), I would probably celebrate with you. Frankly, I was in the dark about authentic Catholicism until I ventured to learn about it for myself.
 
I grew up in the 70s so there was no real catechism taught. It was all very touchy-feely-buddy-Christ-drums-and-guitars-at-mass stuff. Not that thats what I didn't like. It was just boring and I had to go at night and it interfered with Mork and Mindy.

phattonez said:
Knowing the state of many CCD programs (at least in this country), I would probably celebrate with you. Frankly, I was in the dark about authentic Catholicism until I ventured to learn about it for myself.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
I grew up in the 70s so there was no real catechism taught. It was all very touchy-feely-buddy-Christ-drums-and-guitars-at-mass stuff. Not that thats what I didn't like. It was just boring and I had to go at night and it interfered with Mork and Mindy.
Click to expand...

That's not authentic Catholicism. Stick to tradition and that is where the richness of the Catholic faith is.
 
I explored Catholicism in college and gained a deep appreciation for it.

Ultimately, whether the Catholic faith has any greater claim to legitimacy than other Christian faiths rests on the question of apostolic succession. If you don't buy into the Catholic view on apostolic succession (or if you don't buy into the concept at all), then it has no higher claim to authority than any other denomination.

Believing in apostolic succession is particularly challenging if you study the medieval papacy. Given the number of times the papacy traded hands due to bribery, political machinations, the intervention of prostitutes, etc. and given the numerous schisms, the cadaver synod, and even a situation where the cardinals changed their mind and elected a second pope, it's hard to reconcile the idea of apostolic succession with the realities of what transpired. It's not impossible; we do have biblical evidence of God honoring a stolen blessing (see Jacob and Esau), but it's certainly challenging.
 
I've always found interesting the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church. Cramner had already received the "laying on of hands" and was serving as the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the great split made to accommodate Henry VIII's own need to secure dynastic succession.
 
X Factor said:
I absolutely don't doubt it but I agree with Phottenez that, while it does have a Biblical basis, it can be "nonsense" and for show. I'd like to think I'm open to the experience but, quite frankly, it would have to be completely authentic, like nobody would be more surprised than me that it happened.
Click to expand...

If you read Paul he is very strict on this gift and it is even called the lowest of gifts.

1. never speak tongues without someone there to interprit what is being said.
2. never do so in a place where not all people are of the same mind.
3. never do it in openly in front of non-believers unless they think you mad.

it really is a specialized gift and i don't think i have ever meant anyone that really has this gift
and can conduct it in the proper way.

privately it is fine because it is just you and God. public setting is a different story.
 
nota bene said:
I've always found interesting the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church. Cramner had already received the "laying on of hands" and was serving as the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the great split made to accommodate Henry VIII's own need to secure dynastic succession.
Click to expand...

The laying on of hands, though, is not sufficient for validly conferring Holy Orders, though.

With what has been going on in the Church of England, especially in recent years, is highly troubling and is sufficient to validate the protestations that popes have made about the church (especially when Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid).
 
nota bene said:
I've always found interesting the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church. Cramner had already received the "laying on of hands" and was serving as the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the great split made to accommodate Henry VIII's own need to secure dynastic succession.
Click to expand...

These days we have succession from the Anglican, EO, and RCC churches. There is enough cross pollenation to cover us.
 
phattonez said:
The laying on of hands, though, is not sufficient for validly conferring Holy Orders, though.

With what has been going on in the Church of England, especially in recent years, is highly troubling and is sufficient to validate the protestations that popes have made about the church (especially when Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid).
Click to expand...

Pope Leo split that hair with an exceedingly sharp knife. Matthew Parker's Consecration was done with the proper form and matter to do what the Church had always done, the Pope's decision was more political than liturgical.

That said, we have secession from the RCC these days anyway, the RCC is hardly in a position to question her own orders.
 
it's just me said:
Pope Leo split that hair with an exceedingly sharp knife. Matthew Parker's Consecration was done with the proper form and matter to do what the Church had always done, the Pope's decision was more political than liturgical.

That said, we have secession from the RCC these days anyway, the RCC is hardly in a position to question her own orders.
Click to expand...

Though viewing recent events in the Anglican church we can see why Pope Leo was right.
 
phattonez said:
Though viewing recent events in the Anglican church we can see why Pope Leo was right.
Click to expand...

Leo's opposition to Anglican orders had nothing to do with the situation in the C of E today.
 
it's just me said:
Leo's opposition to Anglican orders had nothing to do with the situation in the C of E today.
Click to expand...

No, but it does validate what he was saying.
 
phattonez said:
No, but it does validate what he was saying.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really, because his objection was not a philosophical one, it was a technical one, and centered around the consecration of Matthew Parker. Today Anglican Priests have succession from both the Anglican and the Roman Church.
 
it's just me said:
It doesn't really, because his objection was not a philosophical one, it was a technical one, and centered around the consecration of Matthew Parker. Today Anglican Priests have succession from both the Anglican and the Roman Church.
Click to expand...

But succession alone does not make your orders valid.

Catholic Answers said:
The Bull points out that orders received in the Church of England, according to the change introduced into the Ritual under Edward VI, were disowned as invalid by the Catholic Church, not through a custom grown up gradually, but from the date of that change in the Ritual.
Click to expand...

Apostolicae Curae | Catholic Answers

Succession? Yes. Valid Holy Orders? No.
 
phattonez said:
But succession alone does not make your orders valid.



Apostolicae Curae | Catholic Answers

Succession? Yes. Valid Holy Orders? No.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to tell you this but your Pope was mistaken. The C of E did in fact use the proper form and matter to do what the Church has always done, not only have I examined the old Ordinals but I happen to own copies of them, and I would suggest you do the same. Your Pope did this to keep Catholics out of the Anglican church, and to do it he fell back on a technicality.

But if that's the way you want it, I'll say that your Pope's pronouncement is invalid, because Biblically, he doesn't even exist. Christ did not mean to ordain a Pope, he built his church on Peter's confession, not Peter himself. If any man was first among equals in the first century Church it was Paul, who never even met the Lord, except in spirit.

See how easy it is to cause dis-unity?

For years I have defended your cause against fundamentalists, heretics, and Bible thumpers, so much so that they often think I am RCC. It's one thing to have punk kids and atheists question my orders, it really stings to have a fellow catholic (and we are brothers under the skin) disown me. From now on, you are all on your own as far as I am concerned, in this place and in all places.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom