I Am So Darn Tired!

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

Misericordie: I’m not getting defensive. I’m also not attempting to defend, per se, the reception of Holy Communion in the hand nor am I attempting to argue against Saint Thomas My point was history. Let’s say the first person to suggest that Holy Communion was Saint Thomas (I’m sure it wasn’t, but let’s use that as a historical point in time). If he suggested that the Sacred Host should not be touched by any, save the anointed hands of the priest, and the Church said, “Hey, you know, he’s right!” and thereupon determined that thereafter, no one but the priest would touch the Sacred Species with their hands, what that doesn’t mean is that it was an abuse BEFORE. You said that “many abuses were stopped, such as Communion on the hand, etc.” In this instance, there wasn’t an abuse existing because there was no law forbidding it. It was merely a practice that was changed. I’m not arguing the hand thing either way, I’m arguing that it is incorrect HISTORICALLY to call it an abuse, unless the Apostle and their immediate successors were guilty of abuse. No communion in the hand today? Fine, the Church has the right to regulate the Sacraments. I wasn’t arguing FOR immersive baptism, I’m simply denying that that wasn’t a part of our heritage as Catholics and I’m denying that we’re copying anyone, much less Protestants (ad nauseum, they MOSTLY baptize by pouring water over their infants’ heads). We’ve reverted back, in some places, to an ancient practice. If you want to argue that we don’t need to have immersive baptism and thus no baptismal pools, I don’t have any argument to posit against that, as I believe the Church has the right to regulate how the Sacraments are celebrated as long as she doesn’t alter the essentials (form, matter, and intent). I’m in your corner on that.

Let’s not forget though that the Apostles were by the ordained priests by Christ. They COULD touch the Host=very different than two women next to the altar purifying the vessels and distributing Commion with father, though there are only no more than 40-50 people in the mass. Or father sits while the alter girl prepares the altar.

 

[justme]

misericordie:

Let’s not forget though that the Apostles were by the ordained priests by Christ.

What does this sentence mean?

They COULD touch the Host=very different than two women next to the altar purifying the vessels and distributing Commion with father, though there are only no more than 40-50 people in the mass. Or father sits while the alter girl prepares the altar.

Actually we can all touch the Body of Christ, its called Communion in Hand which is approved of by the Church.

More airing of your personal issues with your priest and spewing out as if it is the way of the whole Church.

You are right, I am getting tired, of this crud…

 

[misericordie]

justme:

What does this sentence mean?

Actually we can all touch the Body of Christ, its called Communion in Hand which is approved of by the Church.

More airing of your personal issues with your priest and spewing out as if it is the way of the whole Church.

You are right, I am getting tired, of this crud…

Actually read some Vatican documents=the latest ones, get up to date on things, then come back and attack my views.

 

[pnewton]

We will be remodeling over the next few years and I am glad to say that incorporating a baptistry for adults is in the works. It is not a bird bath. No birds fly in the church. It is the intial preferred means of baptism and immersion is one of the prime meanings of the word “baptism.” The early church arguement may be old, but it is still valid. I can not imagine why it is disliked, except where the ramifications of it are disliked. In any case, we are doing based on what is currently preferred. It is far more valid of an arguement then finding a certain point in the history of the church and deciding this was the most “Catholic” time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

misericordie:

Actually read some Vatican documents=the latest ones, get up to date on things, then come back and attack my views.

So touching the Body of Christ is wrong again? Please point to the document?

I am aware that the priest should be the one purifying the vessels but please point to the document that says we may not touch the Body of Christ or where an altar server can not place things on the altar to help prepare it.

And I ask again…

misericordie:

Let’s not forget though that the Apostles were by the ordained priests by Christ.

What does this mean? It makes no sense.

 

[justme]

misericordie:

Actually read some Vatican documents=the latest ones, get up to date on things, then come back and attack my views.

So touching the Body of Christ is wrong again? Please point to the document?

I am aware that the priest should be the one purifying the vessels but please point to the document that says we may not touch the Body of Christ or where an altar server can not place things on the altar to help prepare it.

And I ask again…

misericordie:

Let’s not forget though that the Apostles were by the ordained priests by Christ.

What does this mean? It makes no sense.

 

[justme]

pnewton:

We will be remodeling over the next few years and I am glad to say that incorporating a baptistry for adults is in the works. It is not a bird bath. No birds fly in the church. It is the intial preferred means of baptism and immersion is one of the prime meanings of the word “baptism.” The early church arguement may be old, but it is still valid. I can not imagine why it is disliked, except where the ramifications of it are disliked. In any case, we are doing based on what is currently preferred. It is far more valid of an arguement then finding a certain point in the history of the church and deciding this was the most “Catholic” time.

You hit the nail on the head here.

Those who dislike the ramifications of it dislike the arguement of ancient usage.

Especially those who think of themselves as very educated and more knowledgeable than even their priest and bishop.

misericordie:

Actually read some Vatican documents=the latest ones, get up to date on things, then come back and attack my views.

In other words, they know better and we are just stupid if we disagree.

 

[palmas85]

Which Protestants don’t baptize by immersion? The ones that I am familiar with practice full immersion and don’t even practice infant baptism saying that a person has to knowingly accept Christ in order for it to be a valid baptism. That is why if a person has been baptized as a Catholic converts to most Protestant faiths he is required to be re-baptized in that faith. Incidentally they baptize by immersion because they say it is Biblical They reject by and large Catholic baptisms as being non-Biblical in nature and thus invald…

 

[Confiteor]

We have a large baptistry as people enter for infant baptisms (only): note the water DOES get contaminated with all manner of things. Unfortunately, we do have birds in church sometimes, though I don’t know whether they use it as a bath. Yuck! For the Easter vigil baptisms in prior years, they’ve brought in a large tub unit for immersion baptisms. This may have certain merits, but it is a little dangerous as they must walk on a slippery surface up and down from the tub. The baptized seem to shiver a lot afterward until they get to change their clothes. THIS water was passed around in a bowl at the penitential rite after Easter to bless the faithful. Has anyone else experienced that sort of penitential rite? (Not sprinkling, it is passed from bowl to hand to hand.)

I do remember reading somewhere in a Vatican document of some sort that one must not assume everything from the early Christian age is appropriate for today. (I’ll have to try and find the reference.) So…although it may better reflect what early Christians did, that does not need to dictate what we do today. Some of the practices, such as where Mass is held, have evolved. There may be some latitude, but pastors should adhere to the Church guidelines where they have invented their own rituals.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Which Protestants don’t baptize by immersion? The ones that I am familiar with practice full immersion and don’t even practice infant baptism saying that a person has to knowingly accept Christ in order for it to be a valid baptism. That is why if a person has been baptized as a Catholic converts to most Protestant faiths he is required to be re-baptized in that faith. Incidentally they baptize by immersion because they say it is Biblical They reject by and large Catholic baptisms as being non-Biblical in nature and thus invald…

Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Lutherans practice infant baptism by pouring. Baptists, Church of Christ, and Assembly of God (all Holiness folk) by immersion. Only those latter onew, in the Anabaptist tradition, require rebaptism if you convert from another denom or Catholicism (if you convert from Catholicism, the Presbyterians may, I cannot remember). Taken as a whole, numberically throughout the world, more Protestants baptize their infants by pouring than don’t.

 

[misericordie]

Confiteor:

We have a large baptistry as people enter for infant baptisms (only): note the water DOES get contaminated with all manner of things. Unfortunately, we do have birds in church sometimes, though I don’t know whether they use it as a bath. Yuck! For the Easter vigil baptisms in prior years, they’ve brought in a large tub unit for immersion baptisms. This may have certain merits, but it is a little dangerous as they must walk on a slippery surface up and down from the tub. The baptized seem to shiver a lot afterward until they get to change their clothes. THIS water was passed around in a bowl at the penitential rite after Easter to bless the faithful. Has anyone else experienced that sort of penitential rite? (Not sprinkling, it is passed from bowl to hand to hand.)

I do remember reading somewhere in a Vatican document of some sort that one must not assume everything from the early Christian age is appropriate for today. (I’ll have to try and find the reference.) So…although it may better reflect what early Christians did, that does not need to dictate what we do today. Some of the practices, such as where Mass is held, have evolved. There may be some latitude, but pastors should adhere to the Church guidelines where they have invented their own rituals.

Well put. I guess some just want the church to back to using diapers. Plus, I would hardly compare today’s “church” with the “church” of the Apostolic times. Today, there is a certain AGENDA to contest everything that seems catholic ONLY, and mix the punch with a little protestantism.

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Lutherans practice infant baptism by pouring. Baptists, Church of Christ, and Assembly of God (all Holiness folk) by immersion. Only those latter onew, in the Anabaptist tradition, require rebaptism if you convert from another denom or Catholicism (if you convert from Catholicism, the Presbyterians may, I cannot remember). Taken as a whole, numberically throughout the world, more Protestants baptize their infants by pouring than don’t.

Who cares what they do? We are not concerened: Christ established one church for which one day hopefully they can return to the fullness of truth as the document Dominus Iesu says.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Confiteor:

I do remember reading somewhere in a Vatican document of some sort that one must not assume everything from the early Christian age is appropriate for today. (I’ll have to try and find the reference.) So…although it may better reflect what early Christians did, that does not need to dictate what we do today. Some of the practices, such as where Mass is held, have evolved. There may be some latitude, but pastors should adhere to the Church guidelines where they have invented their own rituals.

And no one’s posited an argument opposing the above as such. It’s simply been pointed out that it was an ancient practice which may be used today AND it isn’t a Protestant innovation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

Who cares what they do? We are not concerened: Christ established one church for which one day hopefully they can return to the fullness of truth as the document Dominus Iesu says.

I was answering a question posted by Palmas 85 in Post #27.

 

[robertaf]

misericordie:

Who cares what they do? We are not concerened: Christ established one church for which one day hopefully they can return to the fullness of truth as the document Dominus Iesu says.

You better pray for a major miracle.
If the way Jesus was Baptized by John the Baptist is not good enough, if the way the Apostles and the early Church is good enough then how are you who object to this much different than Luther and the Reformers?

The Reformers rejected the authority of the Church that we believe was chosen by the Holy Spirit and developed the thought of “our way or the Highway”, what is so different than saying one of us knows more than the Authority Our Lord places over us?

Immersion is as Orthodox and Traditionally Catholic as it can be. Sprinkling and pouring was done only when immersion couldn’t be done and also to pacify those who thought getting fully wet was dangerous to infants and the infirm.

This is one reason I have continually begged Catholics to enroll in Church History classes or read the ancient writers.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[1239](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1239.htm’) The essential rite of the sacrament follows: *Baptism *properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head. 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

And from the brainiacs at Catholic Answers:

“It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. **And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others.” **

So all are valid, all are Catholic.

 

[SummaTheo]

robertaf:

You better pray for a major miracle.
**If the way Jesus was Baptized by John the Baptist is not good enough, if the way the Apostles and the early Church is good enough then how are you who object to this much different than Luther and the Reformers?
**
The Reformers rejected the authority of the Church that we believe was chosen by the Holy Spirit and developed the thought of “our way or the Highway”, what is so different than saying one of us knows more than the Authority Our Lord places over us?

Immersion is as Orthodox and Traditionally Catholic as it can be. Sprinkling and pouring was done only when immersion couldn’t be done and also to pacify those who thought getting fully wet was dangerous to infants and the infirm.

This is one reason I have continually begged Catholics to enroll in Church History classes or read the ancient writers.

John the Baptist baptised people differently than we do today. His baptism was of repentance. The one we have to day removes original sin.

Another reason why the early church baptised by imersion is because there were no churches to baptise people in.

 

[misericordie]

robertaf:

You better pray for a major miracle.
If the way Jesus was Baptized by John the Baptist is not good enough, if the way the Apostles and the early Church is good enough then how are you who object to this much different than Luther and the Reformers?

The Reformers rejected the authority of the Church that we believe was chosen by the Holy Spirit and developed the thought of “our way or the Highway”, what is so different than saying one of us knows more than the Authority Our Lord places over us?

Immersion is as Orthodox and Traditionally Catholic as it can be. Sprinkling and pouring was done only when immersion couldn’t be done and also to pacify those who thought getting fully wet was dangerous to infants and the infirm.

This is one reason I have continually begged Catholics to enroll in Church History classes or read the ancient writers.

Well, Jesus nor the Baptist had a Church building.

 

[pnewton]

misericordie:

Who cares what they do? We are not concerened: Christ established one church for which one day hopefully they can return to the fullness of truth as the document Dominus Iesu says.

I care. I am concerned. Exactly how will anyone return to the fullness of the truth if we all ignore all common sense in evangelization and see how snobbish a club we can make the Church into.

Without compromising doctrine one inch or causing the slightest amount of liturgical abuse there is much we can do to reach our brothers in the Lord outside of the Catholic faith. I do not think baptistries have anything to do with being “more protestant”, but if they did, so what? There is nothing at all theological wrong with them. If incorporating them would help us build a bridge to those outside the Church, then why would that be a bad thing?

St. Paul said he would be all things to all people to win some for Christ. Today, some would let the Church shrink to the size of a gaslamp lighters union rather than be anything to anyone. I make it a point to incorporate theologically sound Protestant hymns in our music selection for this very reason. I have never had one complaint, but I can not tell you how many converts have come up and told me how much they love some old hymn.

The field which is America is predominantly Protestant. The affect on our culture is best not ignored but rather adapted to. I am not advocating any compromise in doctrine or even liturgy, but something simple like a baptistry?

 

[misericordie]

pnewton:

I care. I am concerned. Exactly how will anyone return to the fullness of the truth if we all ignore all common sense in evangelization and see how snobbish a club we can make the Church into.

Without compromising doctrine one inch or causing the slightest amount of liturgical abuse there is much we can do to reach our brothers in the Lord outside of the Catholic faith. I do not think baptistries have anything to do with being “more protestant”, but if they did, so what? There is nothing at all theological wrong with them. If incorporating them would help us build a bridge to those outside the Church, then why would that be a bad thing?

St. Paul said he would be all things to all people to win some for Christ. Today, some would let the Church shrink to the size of a gaslamp lighters union rather than be anything to anyone. I make it a point to incorporate theologically sound Protestant hymns in our music selection for this very reason. I have never had one complaint, but I can not tell you how many converts have come up and told me how much they love some old hymn.

The field which is America is predominantly Protestant. The affect on our culture is best not ignored but rather adapted to. I am not advocating any compromise in doctrine or even liturgy, but something simple like a baptistry?

I would accept this, when I walk into a pentecostal church and see a rosary and statue of of Mary.