Presbyterians Think Of Changing 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit'

[cmotherofpirl]

Sorry, I was more responding to the part where Michael seems to just dismiss the presbyterians as heretics and not even christians.
I should never respond before I have had my caffeine.

[Sojourner]

I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic. As an infant, I received a Trinitarian baptism. When I was reconciled with the Catholic church, I provided a record of said baptism and I was not re-baptised. The church accepted the validity of my baptism.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1012379' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:19 AM']
CMP,

I am surprized at this from you. The whole discussion early in the Church was whether the baptism of heretics was valid. The Church said (Pope Stephen I) that the baptism of heretics was valid. It no less made them heretics in declaring this. Whether or not they are validly baptized, they are still in fact heretics. It is up to God to judge whether they are formally (culpable) or materially (perhaps not culpable) so.
[/quote]

Ah good. Have a cup a Joe on me.


[quote name='Sojourner' post='1012382' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:29 AM']
I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic. As an infant, I received a Trinitarian baptism. When I was reconciled with the Catholic church, I provided a record of said baptism and I was not re-baptised. The church accepted the validity of my baptism.
[/quote]

The question is not whether a past trinitarian formula would be valid. The question is whether a baptism in the name of Mother God, Child womb, or whatever would be a valid baptism. I think it very likely it would be rejected by the Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1012465' date='Jun 26 2006, 11:34 AM']
Ah good. Have a cup a Joe on me.
The question is not whether a past trinitarian formula would be valid. The question is whether a baptism in the name of Mother God, Child womb, or whatever would be a valid baptism. I think it very likely it would be rejected by the Church.
[/quote]
At one point some priests did baptise catholics with the "sanctifier" version and had to rebaptise the kids later.

[homeschoolmom]

could it be any clearer? Father, Son, Holy Spirit!

[son_of_angels]

As I said earlier, while Presbyterians, taken simply as such, may on the whole be material heretics, having never themselves willfully committed the sin of heresy, it is important to note that THIS declaration, and all who agree with it, is an act of FORMAL HERESY by those who adopt it, since they have no reason to be inculpably ignorant. They have defended the Trinitarian formula, and been instructed properly in its meaning, as far as possible (the saying "we reject nothing that is holy and true" by VII leaves this a possibility), and therefore, even if they do not know, they SHOULD know their wrongfulness. Ergo those who adopt these beliefs would, barring actual moral incapacity, are FORMAL HERETICS in grave sin, objectively speaking.

[michaelorapronobis]

What about 'Holy Ghost'? Why do modern Catholics and some Protestants use 'Holy Spirit' instead? What is the difference between 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit?'

[Socrates]

[quote name='Michael' post='1012740' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:22 PM']
What about 'Holy Ghost'? Why do modern Catholics and some Protestants use 'Holy Spirit' instead? What is the difference between 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit?'
[/quote]
None really. Both mean the same thing. "Ghost" is simply a more archaic word for "Spirit." (It had not yet become mostly associated with spirits of the dead, as it has in modern times.) Both originally meant "breath" as in "breath of life."

Both terms are acceptable; one just uses more modern language.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Socrates

[son_of_angels]

"Ghost" is simply a more English word for the Latin word "Spiritus." Spirit is a much more direct word from Latin.