Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 29 Oct 90 05:53:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 49 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Let me remind people of the origin of this thread, as it may have got lost over time. Charley had mentioned intercommunion between Anglican and (some) Lutheran groups in this country, and David Wagner had taken exception (from the standpoint of one of the non-intercommuning synods) on the basis of doctrinal purity being important (to the Wisconsinites) as a criterion in this matter. Baptism was first mentioned by Charley as the "filter" used by Episcopal churches for admission to communion. The point being *exactly* that disputes of doctrine are not (by us) taken as grounds for denying communion. Charley (proceding like I do, or many other Anglicans, by way of triple or quadruple negatives that tend to lose other groups :-)) suggested that David's exclusiveness amounted to a sort of Donatism -- and he challenged on the matter of baptism *precisely* because he understood that David *would* accept a non-Lutheran baptism (the multiple negatives come in in the suggestion that otherwise the Wisconsin synod might be questioning its own link by baptisms with Christ.) There is an issue here I am curious about. *Are* there denominations that accept baptism by a non-Christian? Charley's assumption (and mine) was that this is not the case. We know (and I, in some measure accept) the Catholic doctrine of "baptism of desire" -- that is, that God may _in extremis_ take an intent to be baptized as a form of admission to the People of God. But setting that aside, *is* it ever "acceptable" to YOUR denomination (O reader!) to admit someone "baptized" (in totally proper "form") by a non-Christian without requesting a subsequent "true" baptism? If you are uneasy about this, it implies that you DO want the chain of baptisms to be unbroken back to Christ and his disciples. This is what Charley was implying in saying that our own baptismal tradition (except for such few readers here as are Orthodox) necessarily *will* go through Rome. writing as a former catecheumon of the Missouri Synod :-) -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee [Both our Catholic posters and an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest that the Catholic Church does accept baptism by non-Christians. Thus you are requiring an unbroken chain back to a church that does not itself require one to begin with. I have verified in my copy of the Draft BCP that the Episcopal Church does actually require the minister of baptism to be baptized, even in the case of emergency baptisms. So there is a difference here between your practice and Catholic practice that I think neither side may have realized. An interesting question: would you rebaptize a Catholic whose baptism had been by a non-Christian? --clh]