Baptism during Lent

[Brendan]

But both are still theological ‘opinions’, and besides we are talking about history here…not opinion.

And once again, why should I trust Fr. Turner on this historical matter than Pope Paul?

In addition, Pope Paul is speaking about the administration of the Sacraments as presented in Scripture, the IS in the realm of theology.

It makes sense that when baptism and confirmation where completed in one ceremony that the bishop would have done it…doesn’t it?

IF, and only IF the bishop was present at the Baptism, which was not the act with Phillip, either in Samaria or with the Ethopian eunuch.

But that was not your premise. Your premise was that baptism itself was initially reserved to the bishops. But that clearly not the case in Acts.

 

[sfp]

Are we including the John XII in that?

ABSOLUTELY!..
When TEACHING on matters of faith and morals.

That’s the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of our faith…that the Church magesterium is protected by the H.S. from err in teaching faith and morals.

You don’t get this part, do you?

 

[frommi]

ABSOLUTELY!..
When TEACHING on matters of faith and morals.

That’s the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of our faith…that the Church magesterium is protected by the H.S. from err in teaching faith and morals.

You don’t get this part, do you?

Oh…so the fact that John XII had a mistress, murdered a bunch of people and was eventually murdered at the hands of a man whose wife he was sleeping with in no way lowers his credibility…cool.

 

[frommi]

But that was not your premise. Your premise was that baptism itself was initially reserved to the bishops. But that clearly not the case in Acts.

Perhaps “reserved” is too strong of word (like we think of confirmation being ‘reserved’ to a bishop nowadays). I think there is historical evidence that baptisms were not an everyday thing in the early church…and that the bishop did a lot of the baptizing due to the tie with confirmation.

 

[sfp]

Oh…so the fact that John XII had a mistress, murdered a bunch of people and was eventually murdered at the hands of a man whose wife he was sleeping with in no way lowers his credibility…cool.

That’s what I thought…you “don’t” get it.

What you don’t understand, is that EVEN IF your allegations above were true, then it does NOT invalidate papal infallibility. You don’t seem to understand the difference between papal infallibility and “impeccability.” The Pope is a sinner just like us (well, not really “just” like us, but he is a sinner…he goes to confession…daily I might add)

Give me ONE instance where ANY pope, including your favorite example above, where he TEACHES that infidelity, breaking vows, and murder are acceptable. You won’t find it.

Frommi, I hate to point this out, but you are not “catholic” as you state on your profile. We still love you, though.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps “reserved” is too strong of word (like we think of confirmation being ‘reserved’ to a bishop nowadays). I think there is historical evidence that baptisms were not an everyday thing in the early church.

I don’t know how to take that comment. That an individual church did not have a baptizm everyday. No surprise there, most current parishes do hold baptisms everyday.

If you mean that baptisms were not a regular occurance in the life of a bishop, priest or deacon, I think you would be mistaken.

…and that the bishop did a lot of the baptizing due to the tie with confirmation.

I could agree with that, with the understanding the deacons did a lot of baptizing as well, with the bishop coming later to Confirm.

 

[frommi]

That’s what I thought…you “don’t” get it.

What you don’t understand, is that EVEN IF your allegations above were true, then it does NOT invalidate papal infallibility. You don’t seem to understand the difference between papal infallibility and “impeccability.” The Pope is a sinner just like us (well, not really “just” like us, but he is a sinner…he goes to confession…daily I might add)

Give me ONE instance where ANY pope, including your favorite example above, where he TEACHES that infidelity, breaking vows, and murder are acceptable. You won’t find it.

Frommi, I hate to point this out, but you are not “catholic” as you state on your profile. We still love you, though.

There is an infallible teaching authority that can be exercised through the magisterium…I’m not denying that.

Your first statement was that “Pope” gives someone instant credibility with you…and I think that’s interesting because we’ve had some pretty bad people end up as Pope over the history of the church.

And you’re right, I mis-spoke in my profile…I’m Catholic…and I’ll appreciate you to not demean my faith by passing judgment on whether or not I meet your level of 'Catholicty"

 

[sfp]

There is an infallible teaching authority that can be exercised through the magisterium…I’m not denying that.

Your first statement was that “Pope” gives someone instant credibility with you…and I think that’s interesting because we’ve had some pretty bad people end up as Pope over the history of the church.

And you’re right, I mis-spoke in my profile…I’m Catholic…and I’ll appreciate you to not demean my faith by passing judgment on whether or not I meet your level of 'Catholicty"

Sorry to offend you, Frommi, I certainly didn’t intend to do so, so please accept my heartfelt apologies.

What I mean, is that “by definition,” when anyone "protest"s a Catholic doctrine, then this person is a “PROTESTant” by definition. I’m not demeaning your faith, your integrity, passing judgement, or anything else…

But to be “Catholic,” by DEFINITION, means to assent your intellect and will to ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which you obviously do not, when it comes down to papal infallibility, which is a DOCTRINE of the faith.

1. And YES, “Pope” DOES give instant credibility, because HE ALONE is infallible when TEACHING matters of faith and morals. Note that I did NOT say that he is not a sinner.

2a. Out of 264 popes, how many were “questionable,” in terms of their own personal struggles? I’ve only heard of 7 even being accused of anything! (Out of 264!..over a period of 2000 years!) This alone says an aweful lot!

2b. Out of 264 popes, how many TAUGHT inconsistently with constant Church teaching on matters of faith and morals? …ZERO (this says it all)

 

[frommi]

Sorry to offend you, Frommi, I certainly didn’t intend to do so, so please accept my heartfelt apologies.

What I mean, is that “by definition,” when anyone "protest"s a Catholic doctrine, then this person is a “PROTESTant” by definition. I’m not demeaning your faith, your integrity, passing judgement, or anything else…

But to be “Catholic,” by DEFINITION, means to assent your intellect and will to ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which you obviously do not, when it comes down to papal infallibility, which is a DOCTRINE of the faith.

1. And YES, “Pope” DOES give instant credibility, because HE ALONE is infallible when TEACHING matters of faith and morals. Note that I did NOT say that he is not a sinner.

2a. Out of 264 popes, how many were “questionable,” in terms of their own personal struggles? I’ve only heard of 7 even being accused of anything! (Out of 264!..over a period of 2000 years!) This alone says an aweful lot!

2b. Out of 264 popes, how many TAUGHT inconsistently with constant Church teaching on matters of faith and morals? …ZERO (this says it all)

Popes are not infallible…it’s not a mutant power they receive upon election.

They certainly are not always exercising that dogmatic power everytime they speak for heavens sake.

I’m just saying that it takes more than an election at the hands of the college of cardinals to give someone ‘credibility’.

If what you were saying were true…then people would listen to their bishops far more often.

 

[sfp]

Popes are not infallible…it’s not a mutant power they receive upon election…

OH MY GOSH!! :banghead:

I didn’t say when he speaks about “anything.” I said “…when he TEACHES regarding faith and morals.”

PLEASE read this article and educate yourself on what you claim to be your faith, and then let’s talk…
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

And Frommi…
IF you don’t believe the Pope was infallible when he defined which books were to be considered inspired by God in 397 AD, then you MUST admit that you think he “could have” made a mistake. SO…why do you believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God if the Pope was not infallible in that determination?

 

[marci]

Popes are not infallible…it’s not a mutant power they receive upon election…

I’m just saying that it takes more than an election at the hands of the college of cardinals to give someone ‘credibility’.

.

How about the Holy Spirit directing the conscience of the voting cardinals?

Also, I have to coment on something you said earlier about it not being a big deal to wait 42 days to baptize your baby. If you really believed in the sacrament why would anyone consider keeping an innocent child from it. I baptized all of my kids within 3 weeks of birth and it was too long of a wait for me. I would have had the priest show up in the delivery room if I could have managed it.

Baptism, for those who may have forgotten, removes original sin.
CCC 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

 

[theology_geek]

When one considers that Lent is only 6 weeks long…its not like the sacrament is being unnecessairly withheld.

Thank You! A reasonable statement.

In Southern Nevada it will take you about 4 weeks to get your child’s birth certificate. You must attend a baptism class and so must both godparents (assuming you have 2). The class is offered once a month. If Godparents are from another parish they have to have their pastor sign a form stating that they are parishioners there. Once you have done all of this you come in to schedule your date - at least 4 weeks in advance.

How are you going to do this in two weeks? Most families will take 8 weeks to get everything done. If they take the class before the child is born and talk the secretary into penciling a date in it could be done in about 6 weeks. How long is Lent again? I think it can be a valid pastorl decision which has a beautiful history in the early Church.

Gotta run. I have to prepare to teach the Baptism Class tonight! I also better pick what Sunday we will have our 8 day old son baptized. Pax et Bonum

Theology Geek

 

[Cobbfmly]

Thank You! A reasonable statement.

In Southern Nevada it will take you about 4 weeks to get your child’s birth certificate. You must attend a baptism class and so must both godparents (assuming you have 2). The class is offered once a month. If Godparents are from another parish they have to have their pastor sign a form stating that they are parishioners there. Once you have done all of this you come in to schedule your date - at least 4 weeks in advance.

How are you going to do this in two weeks? Most families will take 8 weeks to get everything done. If they take the class before the child is born and talk the secretary into penciling a date in it could be done in about 6 weeks. How long is Lent again? I think it can be a valid pastorl decision which has a beautiful history in the early Church.

Gotta run. I have to prepare to teach the Baptism Class tonight! I also better pick what Sunday we will have our 8 day old son baptized. Pax et Bonum

Theology Geek

We had the same requirements. We insisted that we start the process before our daughter was born. We didn’t want to wait any longer than necessary, so we wanted all the classes, paperwork, etc out of the way before her birth. Then all we needed to do was bring her to the first scheduled baptism ceremony after she was born.

Both godparents were from other parishes (Godfather lived 400 miles away). We were able to get everything done and get my daughter baptized when she was 25 days old.

God’s hand was in on this as my mother and grandmother came (they live 400 miles from us) and we had a 4 generation picture taken the day after the baptism. Four days after the baptism, my mother had a brain anyrism, never regained consciousness and passed away five days later. We would never had had a four generation picture taken if the baptism had happened any later.

 

[Phemie]

There would be no priests available on that day, anyway, since they have to go to their Cathedral Church and renew their vows to their Bishop, as well as attend him while he blesses the holy oils, and then bring them back to the parish. This is followed by the Maundy Thursday Mass, which is the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

That depends on where you live. Most priests in our diocese don’t attend the Chrism Mass unless it’s celebrated on a day other than Holy Thursday, otherwise they can’t get back to their parish in time for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

Only emergency baptisms are allowed on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

 

[Phemie]

Thank You! A reasonable statement.

In Southern Nevada it will take you about 4 weeks to get your child’s birth certificate.

Is this relevant?

You must attend a baptism class and so must both godparents (assuming you have 2). The class is offered once a month. If Godparents are from another parish they have to have their pastor sign a form stating that they are parishioners there. Once you have done all of this you come in to schedule your date - at least 4 weeks in advance.

**We have baptismal preparation about once every 3 months. We encourage parents to prepare before the baby is born and have the baby baptized soon after the birth but tonight we baptized a 2 year old whose parents had been waiting for the godfather to come to town.

Once the preparation is done we only require a few days notice. If they call Friday they can have baby baptized on Sunday. **

Theology Geek

 

[Xpi]

Yesterday was the First Sunday of Lent and arrangements had been made sometime ago for the Baptism of my grandson following the Mass on this Sunday. All was in order. It was to take place at the chapel of a military base as my son-in-law is in the military. As it happened the usual priest at the base was unable to be there due to illness and another priest was called in. He refused to do the Baptism saying it is prohibited by Canon Law to give the Sacrament during Lent except in extremis. We suspected that this is not so, but the priest said: “I have never done it and I never will.” This is despite the fact that it had been arranged prior, all instruction and paper work done, reception arranged, guests invited and all those things people do to celebrate this Sacrament which this child, through his parents, seeks, for life and grace. Clearly there was hurt, not to speak of scandal, following this episode. Some members of the family are non-Catholics. This seemed peculiar to them. For all of us it was sad. As too often happens, the priest was detached from the needs and care of the people. There are many good priests but there is a serious danger, an occupational hazard, for priests to remove themselves from accountability. This priest ought to know the law of the Church in this matter of Baptism. So the conclusion can only be that he spoke in culpable ignorance or he lied to avoid having to celebrate this Sacrament. I am content to leave him in God’s Hands as we all must give an account for our actions. It seems, finally, that charity demanded a different response to the needs of this young family and their guests.

 

[Phemie]

I’m so sorry you were denied Baptism for your grandson on false grounds. How sad that a priest could be so mistaken about canon laws surrounding this sacrament.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

If I was your son, and that priest was also military, and the other chaplain left specific instructions, I would kick it up the chain-of-command, all the way up to Bishop Broglio if had to so do. I would file a complaint with the base commander, as well. I would do this even when the other priest recovers and baptizes your grandson. I am sorry your son, your family and mos timportantly your infnat grandson had to endure this ignorance on the part of the other priest. There is no excuse for a priest not knowing this, and he created a bad name for the Church and your son’s branch of service.

I am sure there will be somebody along to say that your son should “obey” Father. They are wrong on that one!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

PS: As a veteran, and a person who has friends who are Catholic chaplains, this upsets me greatly.

 

[Xpi]

We are speaking to the person who first arranged for the Baptism. As we gain more information, I will advise. It is important to be at peace amidst this hurt. I am sure God’s Will will be evident.