J
jmcrae
Guest
Why are you bringing it up in this thread?
We are in the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum; not the Traditional Forum.
- Status
We are in the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum; not the Traditional Forum.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Does everyone realize that there is a difference between the Roman Ritual of 1962 and the current ritual?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Are you aware that anything from 1962 is not really relevant to this thread?
Nobody is getting baptized according to the laws of 1962. Even the FSSP have to follow the norms of the RCIA, and current law.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Every priest of the Roman Rite may use any of the 1962 books (missal, ritual, etc.) as he sees fit. See the Pope’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum for more information. Also see the encyclical Spe Salvi, where Pope Benedict quotes directly from the traditional rite of baptism. Moreover, this has been what I have been speaking about for the entire thread. I hope the original poster has solved his concerns.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, then, you have been off-topic for the entire thread.
No wonder I couldn’t fathom what you were driving at.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
No, it wasn’t off topic because the 1962 liturgical books are not second-rate or any less necessary than the current rites. In fact, in this particular matter, the Pope seems to think they are, on the contrary, much more relevant, at least according to his preference of the former in explaining the nature of baptism in his most recently encyclical referencing the subject.
Someone claimed, in telling the OP, that baptism is not permitted at the Easter Vigil. I challenged that assertion. When re-challenged, I asked, on the first page of the thread, about whether anyone had any documentation. When that documentation was brought forth concerning the new rite, I asked whether anyone had any documentation about whether this applied to the traditional rite. (If not, it would be incorrect to claim that it is not permitted at the Easter Vigil because, as the Pope has continually said, the 1962 liturgical books are [at least] equal to the new.) After taking two pages to make that crystal clear, even though it was evident from my first response to the documentation concerning the new rite (and after you even responded about the traditional rite according to an explanation you read in one book), you now are saying that my conversation was off-topic. While I eschew emoticons for the most part, especially this particular one, as I think it detracts from discussion…
It’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with simply saying, “My mistake; I didn’t understand.” Nothing wrong with it, and it’s not very difficult – at least if one is seeking the truth in discussion and not anything else. I was mistaken about the new rite. I was unfamiliar with any proscription of conditional baptism in public. No need to blame others for one’s own misunderstanding.
Someone claimed, in telling the OP, that baptism is not permitted at the Easter Vigil. I challenged that assertion. When re-challenged, I asked, on the first page of the thread, about whether anyone had any documentation. When that documentation was brought forth concerning the new rite, I asked whether anyone had any documentation about whether this applied to the traditional rite. (If not, it would be incorrect to claim that it is not permitted at the Easter Vigil because, as the Pope has continually said, the 1962 liturgical books are [at least] equal to the new.) After taking two pages to make that crystal clear, even though it was evident from my first response to the documentation concerning the new rite (and after you even responded about the traditional rite according to an explanation you read in one book), you now are saying that my conversation was off-topic. While I eschew emoticons for the most part, especially this particular one, as I think it detracts from discussion…
It’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with simply saying, “My mistake; I didn’t understand.” Nothing wrong with it, and it’s not very difficult – at least if one is seeking the truth in discussion and not anything else. I was mistaken about the new rite. I was unfamiliar with any proscription of conditional baptism in public. No need to blame others for one’s own misunderstanding.
- Status