Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 01:29:53 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 43 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ando wrote: his senses, etc). This, i believe, is a basic difference between Orthodox and Roman Cath. teaching on the priesthood. Catholics (according to my understanding) believe that no matter what a priest or bishop does or believes or preaches, he is always has the grace of his office to some extent. Catholics believe that the Sacrament of Holy Order changes the recipient's soul in a way that is permanent. It's called the "character" of the Sacrament. Conferring valid orders involves other things besides the episcopal character, though. Presumably, a man who believes in Krishna no longer believes in the Christian priesthood, so certainly cannot form the intention to ordain a Catholic priest. And thus cannot ordain. Joe Buehler [I had thought that intent was interpreted in a "formal" sense in the Catholic tradition. If you say that those with an incorrect understanding of the sacrament cannot have the correct intent, then you raise serious doubt about the validity of many American Catholic sacraments, since the clergy and bishops in this country manifestly do not all have the same understanding of sacraments, and thus at least some of them must be wrong. And how about corrupt church officials, who do not really believe in the faith but continue to function? This is precisely the problem that came up in the Donatist controversy: if validity depends upon the interior state of the minister, then it becomes impossible for anyone to know whether they have been validly baptized, etc. (I mention only the practical issues -- there are also theological ones.) As I understand it, "intent" is designed primarily to make sure that it is actually a Catholic sacrament being performed, and not e.g. words in a play or in some foreign ecclesiastical context. I agree that repeating the baptismal formula in a Hindu worship context, even if done by an ordained Christian clergyman, does not constitute a Christian act. But if done in the context of Christian worship, and it happens that the person has secretly become a Hindu (one supposes that if he were openly so, no Christian body would allow him as a worship leader), I believe the act is still Christian. --clh]