Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 25 Oct 90 07:39:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 54 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu David Wagner writes: >Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any >baptism in which >1. Water is applied to the individual. >2. The Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, > and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19). Last time I checked, there is also the requirement that the minister be a christian, i.e., baptized. >It is strange to hear you say that because we declare ourselves separate >from Rome, that our baptisms are not valid. This is Donatism, which >is rejected as much by Rome as by us. Augustine, in particular, waged >battles against this heresy. But the same argument can be applied to the Eucharist. -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure." [Donatism is specifically the claim that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the spiritual or ethical status of the minister, including his status as a member of a schismatic organization. So the claim that baptisms by schismatics are invalid simply because they are in schism -- assuming all of the formal requirements are met -- is most specifically Donatism. However this can get complicated if one of the formal requirements is that the person has authority, and the model of authority limits it to a specific group. A Catholic might claim that Protestant communions are invalid because in order to have a valid communion, the minister must be a validly ordained priest, and Protestants don't have any way to ordain priests (even if they wanted to). This claim is not normally considered Donatist. If someone wanted to claim that Protestant baptisms are invalid, this claim could be Donatist or not depending upon the exact reasoning. Consider the following possible arguments 1) baptism can only be performed by baptised persons. At some point in the history of Protestantism the chain of baptisms was broken because people were not baptised (or were baptized by those who hadn't thenselves been baptized) 2) Protestant baptisms meet all the formal requirements, but because Protestants are in schism their sacramental actions are invalid. The first claim might be false, but would not be Donatist. The second is specifically Donatist. The issue with the Eucharist is analogous to the first argument. I'm not sure exactly what argument (if any) is being made against Protestant baptisms, as I don't recall the original claim. --clh]