2
27lw
Guest
Hmmm.
I’ve never heard of this Amish approach to new things.
Is there a source you could point me to?
I’ve never heard of this Amish approach to new things.
Is there a source you could point me to?
Catholic school changing tradition: "In the name of the Creator, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit"
- Status
It’s just common knowledge among anyone who has had any dealings with, or has lived or worked alongside the Amish, but since you need to see sources to back up the idea, here goes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9fa0ba-36fc-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html
https://amishamerica.com/do-amish-use-technology/
Keep in mind, too, that the Amish are not monolithic, and they do not have “hive mind” — there are many different types of Amish, some more liberal than others.
As for adopting everything new and trendy willy-nilly, and the cringe-worthy results that can come from it, I refer you to the 1970s. Fashion, interior decorating, and music come immediately to mind (though some of the music has endured and was not bad at all, the Eagles and even KISS if you like that sort of thing).
Full disclosure: I have distant Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry, basically Mennonite but I just say “Amish” because nobody outside of Pennsylvania has the slightest idea what a Mennonite is, but they know what Amish are, or they think they do, anyway.
And my first rock concert ever was KISS. Iconic.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
.
This is a serious problem.
You could write to the bishop about this. You could get his address on the web by going to the diocese’s web page, and write him at the chancery office about it if it doesn’t give his home address.
It could help if you could send a recording of this or other verification.
However, if the bishop provides your name to the school, they might make trouble about it.
This is a serious problem.
You could write to the bishop about this. You could get his address on the web by going to the diocese’s web page, and write him at the chancery office about it if it doesn’t give his home address.
It could help if you could send a recording of this or other verification.
However, if the bishop provides your name to the school, they might make trouble about it.
Last edited:
M
monika1
Guest
Yes my school was founded by the sisters of mercy and the one who founded the sisters of mercy was Catherine McAuley.
M
monika1
Guest
I will ask one of the teachers because at my school (i don’t want to assume or anything ) there are hardly any catholics/christians and amongst my group of friends no one is christian. I don’t know many other people so it would be hard to get signatures but i agree with your approach to get as many people to sign it. I will try my best though 
2
27lw
Guest
Thanks for that! I mean, I like that approach, I wondered if there was a literal list of questions that they weigh.
I live near Amish, I just see them at the grocery store, I don’t have dealings with them otherwise. Just because they keep to themselves, which is fine, of course.
I live near Amish, I just see them at the grocery store, I don’t have dealings with them otherwise. Just because they keep to themselves, which is fine, of course.
N
Nigel7
Guest
The slippery slopes of the modernists Church of Nice.
Beware.
Good job recognizing their b.s., monika1.
Beware.
Good job recognizing their b.s., monika1.
L
LilyM
Guest
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
It is heresy. The Church has already ruled on it. I don’t know where to source it from the Vatican, but the reason why some people like to change the Sign of the Cross is because they also want to change the Baptismal Formula.phil19034:
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
The people who do this are pushing for baptisms to be the same way.
So, they are not simply changing the Sign of the Cross, they are attempting to change the Baptismal Formula, which is heresy.
Many of them are also pushing this in order to push forward female priests. If you can eliminate the masculine nature of God the Father and of God the Son, then the pro-women priest crowd has one less argument to overcome.
Point is - people are doing this in an attempt to undermine and change Dogma.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Found it… it is a form of Sabellianism heresy making a comeback. It’s also known as Modalism.phil19034:
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
In addition to changing the baptismal formula to in the Name of the Creator, Jesus & the Holy Spirit; another version (which was more popular): is in the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.
Creator, Jesus & the Holy Spirit is simply a revision to Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier
They are hiding it by switching to using Jesus’ name & keeping the name of the Holy Spirit, but they are still refusing to acknowledge God the Father as a Person. He’s more than simply a creator, He is a loving Father. And they are also refusing to acknowledge Jesus as a loving Son of this Father and as the Son of Man.
In the Name of The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit expresses far more than just Their names. The formula also expresses Their loving relationship to Each Other.
God Bless
L
LilyM
Guest
Jesus is male - no getting around that. And there are plenty of places in scripture where God is described - and describes Himself - in motherly rather than fatherly terms.LilyM:
It is heresy. The Church has already ruled on it. I don’t know where to source it from the Vatican, but the reason why some people like to change the Sign of the Cross is because they also want to change the Baptismal Formula.phil19034:
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
The people who do this are pushing for baptisms to be the same way.
So, they are not simply changing the Sign of the Cross, they are attempting to change the Baptismal Formula, which is heresy.
Many of them are also pushing this in order to push forward female priests. If you can eliminate the masculine nature of God the Father and of God the Son, then the pro-women priest crowd has one less argument to overcome.
Point is - people are doing this in an attempt to undermine and change Dogma.
If female priesthood or blurring gender distinctions is the aim, why not describe God as female? And why not use a gemder-neutral term for Jesus.instead of His very maaculine given.name?
I do think you may be reading slightly more into this than there is. Again, I think.it is problematic but I don’t think there is enough to blast them.as heretics just yet.
And the very least you could do is properly cite Magisterial teaching to back you up if you are.gojng to make such a serious accusation. To do otherwise is little short of slander and is certainly rash judgement.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
monika1, I tend to agree with you mother on this. Keep saying it the right way yoursself and tolerate it for the sake of your schooling. My daughter finished at a Catholic girls highschool in Queensland 8 years ago and this sort of thing was happening then especially in Catholic girls schools. There was back then a feminist hub of nuns pushing very hard to replace traditional prayers with female or genderless terms. It is disturbing and the diocese receives complaints regularly.I will ask one of the teachers because at my school (i don’t want to assume or anything ) there are hardly any catholics/christians and amongst my group of friends no one is christian. I don’t know many other people so it would be hard to get signatures but i agree with your approach to get as many people to sign it. I will try my best though
P
phil19034
Guest
Again, it is a form of Sabellianism, which was condemned by the Church.phil19034:
Jesus is male - no getting around that. And there are plenty of places in scripture where God is described - and describes Himself - in motherly rather than fatherly terms.LilyM:
It is heresy. The Church has already ruled on it. I don’t know where to source it from the Vatican, but the reason why some people like to change the Sign of the Cross is because they also want to change the Baptismal Formula.phil19034:
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
The people who do this are pushing for baptisms to be the same way.
So, they are not simply changing the Sign of the Cross, they are attempting to change the Baptismal Formula, which is heresy.
Many of them are also pushing this in order to push forward female priests. If you can eliminate the masculine nature of God the Father and of God the Son, then the pro-women priest crowd has one less argument to overcome.
Point is - people are doing this in an attempt to undermine and change Dogma.
If female priesthood or blurring gender distinctions is the aim, why not describe God as female? And why not use a gemder-neutral term for Jesus.instead of His very maaculine given.name?
I do think you may be reading slightly more into this than there is. Again, I think.it is problematic but I don’t think there is enough to blast them.as heretics just yet. And the very least ypu could do is properly cite Magisterial teaching to back you up if you are.gojng to make such a serious accusation. To do otherwise is little short of slander and is certainly rash judgement.
L
LilyM
Guest
Really?LilyM:
Again, it is a form of Sabellianism, which was condemned by the Church.phil19034:
Jesus is male - no getting around that. And there are plenty of places in scripture where God is described - and describes Himself - in motherly rather than fatherly terms.LilyM:
It is heresy. The Church has already ruled on it. I don’t know where to source it from the Vatican, but the reason why some people like to change the Sign of the Cross is because they also want to change the Baptismal Formula.phil19034:
I certainly don’t think the words should be changed willy-nilly.
But the context is not clear - is this change being implemented in Mass as opposed to private prayer? The latter allows for some flexibility , the former does not.
I don’t see how substituting “Father” for “Creator,” for example, comes to.the level of heresy. Certainly the Father is our Creator and we often address Him by titles other than “Father”, do we not? Likewise with “Jesus” and “the Son”.
Not.that I am saying either change in tge Sign of the Cross is a good.idea, but I don’t see how it is heretical.
The people who do this are pushing for baptisms to be the same way.
So, they are not simply changing the Sign of the Cross, they are attempting to change the Baptismal Formula, which is heresy.
Many of them are also pushing this in order to push forward female priests. If you can eliminate the masculine nature of God the Father and of God the Son, then the pro-women priest crowd has one less argument to overcome.
Point is - people are doing this in an attempt to undermine and change Dogma.
If female priesthood or blurring gender distinctions is the aim, why not describe God as female? And why not use a gemder-neutral term for Jesus.instead of His very maaculine given.name?
I do think you may be reading slightly more into this than there is. Again, I think.it is problematic but I don’t think there is enough to blast them.as heretics just yet. And the very least ypu could do is properly cite Magisterial teaching to back you up if you are.gojng to make such a serious accusation. To do otherwise is little short of slander and is certainly rash judgement.
I have to say that calling God the Father ANYTHING other than ‘Father’ (for example “Lord God Almoghty” or simply “God” with no qualifiers) seems to be just s much a denial.of His Fatherhood by that logic, and therefoee pretry much any and every other form.of address than 'God the Father" could.be condemned.as a.form of Sabellianism.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
It’s not God the Father on His own. Of course He is the Creator & The Lord Almighty. It has to do with Holy Trinity & the relationship of the Three Holy Persons.
Look, here is a simple fact: When people INSIST on things like this, they have a reason for it.
What would be the reason to INSIST on using a different Baptismal Formula if the reason wasn’t to attempt a change in belief?
We give these Titles to the Holy Trinity in order to properly express our belief. It’s the same reason we give The Blessed Virgin Mary the title “Mother of God” instead of “Mother of Jesus.”
Yes, she is the Mother of Jesus, so it’s technically not incorrect. But the reason we insist on calling her Mother of God is because that specifies who Jesus is. He is God - fully Divine & fully Man.
It’s the same thing with Titles of the Holy Trinity. We make & pray The Sign of the Cross to remind us of our baptism. Baptism in the Name of the Creator, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit are not a valid Baptism.
The Church has declared that such a baptism does not work. So why would someone want to do that?
Why INSIST on teaching someone to remember their baptism in a heretical way? Why push a baptismal formula (which is what The Sign of the Cross is) that is heretical?
Lex orandi lex credendi. How we pray leads to how we believe.
God Bless
M
Maximian
Guest
It’s not only contrary to Tradition but also to Scripture. Our Lord’s exact words were:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19);
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19);
P
PetraG
Guest
No, but the context is the sign of the Cross. To name the Trinity we say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (And notice it says in the name (singular) of, not in the names (plural) of. We are naming the Trinity not just individual Persons. As already pointed out elsewhere here, changing the name of the Trinity shifts from the Trinity to separately naming each of the Persons, removing the relationship.
Last edited:
A
Agnus-Dei
Guest
Another suggestion. Do it the right way, graduate, THEN “fashion a whip with cords” and go to it.
If you feel you need to do something now: Record secretly and send the sound file along with the description of the problem to the bishop. Anonymous of course, or have a parent send it. (Fastmail(dot)com will let you “try it out” for 30days. After that, no pay, account deleted.) If it can be done in 30days, there is your “now and anonymous option”.
Dominus vobiscum
If you feel you need to do something now: Record secretly and send the sound file along with the description of the problem to the bishop. Anonymous of course, or have a parent send it. (Fastmail(dot)com will let you “try it out” for 30days. After that, no pay, account deleted.) If it can be done in 30days, there is your “now and anonymous option”.
Dominus vobiscum
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
“I believe in One GodLilyM:
Because Jesus is the creator.
the Father ALMIGHTY …
and in Jesus Christ His only Son .our LORD…
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the GIVER OF LIFE …”
Every Sunday we say this, and so give solely to one or another of the Trinity honorifics that could equally apply to all. The Father is, as you said, not alone in being Creator, or almighty, nor the Son alone in being Lord, nor the Spirit alone in being giver of life.
We dishonour none of them by so doing. There is not time enough or human voices enough to give to each the fulness of glories and titles that each deserves.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Just calmly go up the chain of responsibility. First, simply complain to whoever does this that this is not the sign of the Cross and it is not open to personal alteration and since it is obviously not just a one-day aberration you cannot be complicit with it. The real sign of the Cross and only the real sign of the Cross needs to return. If they don’t concede that you’re right, go to the principal and relate the conversation with the person or persons who refused to amend this wrong-headed practice. If that also does not work, complain to whatever priest ought to be overseeing the school, relating the dates and nature of your direct complaints prior to coming to him with your concerns. If there isn’t one or if he also does nothing, contact the superintendent of Catholic schools in that diocese.
An 8th grader can complain directly to a teacher, but if the student isn’t comfortable, the parent can do it. After that, the parent ought to be leading the charge. A high school student, however, could personally take this all the way to the superintendent of Catholic schools (who will be the person the bishop would have taking care of this in the end, anyway).
An 8th grader can complain directly to a teacher, but if the student isn’t comfortable, the parent can do it. After that, the parent ought to be leading the charge. A high school student, however, could personally take this all the way to the superintendent of Catholic schools (who will be the person the bishop would have taking care of this in the end, anyway).
Last edited:
- Status