I Am So Darn Tired!

[misericordie]

I am so tired of churches here in the USA that have those bird baths that pass off as “baptismal fonts.” What’s worse is that some moronic pastor comes along, destroys the beutiful church in his care, and remodels to put one of those swimming pools. For God’s sakes=do we as Roman catholics have to continue to immitate the protestants? If only THEY would immitate us in ONE single thing that’s 100% Catholic.
Does anyone have these bird baths in their church?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Are you talking about the accomdations being made to baptize adults by immersion? If so, see this article:

catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=364

We’re not copying them, we ourselves used to baptize by immersion.
The modifications simply allow us to return to an ancient practice. I don’t think it was ever essential to the Church to do it in one particular way, though. I don’t mind the baptistries, but I do rather think we need to be careful in saying we’re copying Protestants, most of whom do NOT, in fact, baptize by immersion. Most of them baptize their babies by pouring water over their heads.

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

Are you talking about the accomdations being made to baptize adults by immersion? If so, see this article:

catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=364

We’re not copying them, we ourselves used to baptize by immersion.
The modifications simply allow us to return to an ancient practice. I don’t think it was ever essential to the Church to do it in one particular way, though. I don’t mind the baptistries, but I do rather think we need to be careful in saying we’re copying Protestants, most of whom do NOT, in fact, baptize by immersion. Most of them baptize their babies by pouring water over their heads./QUOTEI have heard this overused argument more times than what the ocean contains water. To say let’s return to an “ancient” practice in the church of the EARLY Christians is like saying: once one in 40 years old, he should go back to using diapers. Plus, back then there was little if no LITURGICAL ABUSE and people respected the sacred a little more. By the way, did I mention those bird baths usually become gnat and mosquito infested? Worse, I have seen homeless people come in from the street to wash/immerse their laundry in them, as well as wash their face, and hands, and even some parish members. These are churches I have sad to say visited, as per I would only belong to a REAL Catholic parish.

 

[wannabee]

Careful here

The Orthodox Baptise by Immersion

Misericordie - I think you need a really good holiday - you have been full of miseries for ages

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

I have heard this overused argument more times than what the ocean contains water. To say let’s return to an “ancient” practice in the church of the EARLY Christians is like saying: once one in 40 years old, he should go back to using diapers. Plus, back then there was little if no LITURGICAL ABUSE and people respected the sacred a little more. By the way, did I mention those bird baths usually become gnat and mosquito infested? Worse, I have seen homeless people come in from the street to wash/immerse their laundry in them, as well as wash their face, and hands, and even some parish members. These are churches I have sad to say visited, as per I would only belong to a REAL Catholic parish.

Um, no the bit about the diapers doesn’t make a good argument in this case. Are we saying that NOW the Church knows better than the Apostles?

Wow, that bit about the homeless is a problem. We don’t have that problem here, but we also don’t have an immersive font. We have the traditional.

Respectfully, a “real” Catholic parish is a parish in communion with the local Catholic ordinary who is in communion with the Holy See. The Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church determine what is “real” Catholic, we don’t. The presence of an immersive baptistry does not render a parish a “not real” Catholic church, as it is permitted by the bishop and, more importantly, the Holy See.

Why don’t you just say that YOU don’t care for them? I bet there’s lots of people who would agree with you. I haven’t seen one yet that I thought was well done, but I admit that that’s a personal opinion, I don’t claim that they’re not Catholic.

 

[mgy100]

What can you do? At least you have the Eucharist. No matter what, at least you have that.

 

[netmilsmom]

misericordie:

JKirkLVNV:

Are you talking about the accomdations being made to baptize adults by immersion? If so, see this article:

catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=364

We’re not copying them, we ourselves used to baptize by immersion.
The modifications simply allow us to return to an ancient practice. I don’t think it was ever essential to the Church to do it in one particular way, though. I don’t mind the baptistries, but I do rather think we need to be careful in saying we’re copying Protestants, most of whom do NOT, in fact, baptize by immersion. Most of them baptize their babies by pouring water over their heads.I have heard this overused argument more times than what the ocean contains water. To say let’s return to an “ancient” practice in the church of the EARLY Christians is like saying: once one in 40 years old, he should go back to using diapers. Plus, back then there was little if no LITURGICAL ABUSE and people respected the sacred a little more. By the way, did I mention those bird baths usually become gnat and mosquito infested? Worse, I have seen homeless people come in from the street to wash/immerse their laundry in them, as well as wash their face, and hands, and even some parish members. These are churches I have sad to say visited, as per I would only belong to a REAL Catholic parish.

I fully agree with you. The “ancient” practice is when all of the Christians were Catholic. Things have changed since then. Why not be proud of those things truly Catholic, not the things hijacked by other denominations?

I’m really proud to be Catholic. I want to do the things that are traditionally Catholic and show what I am. Blurring the lines is like coming to America and refusing to blend into society or do anything traditionally American. We have that situation here in Hamtramck, MI. An entire long time Catholic/Polish part of Detroit where the people now refuse to leave the Middle East.
To some of us, walking into these Catholic Communities is like going home to Hamtramck. You can see the tiny parts of the familiar, i.e. a few bakeries and butchers but all in all the place has changed to something we are totally unfamiliar with.

 

[Melanie01]

Ahh weellll there you go in this time of anything goes…

I am so glad we have our lovely font but then I am on the fringes…Amen Amen

 

[JKirkLVNV]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I fully agree with you. The “ancient” practice is when all of the Christians were Catholic. Things have changed since then. Why not be proud of those things truly Catholic, not the things hijacked by other denominations?

I don’t think it matters how we’re baptized, as long as it’s done with water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the intent to baptize, but…immersive Baptism is truly Catholic precisely *because *it was done “when all of the Christians were Catholic.” From the Apostolic age to about the 4th century, it was the norm. People may have had the water poured over them, but they went down into the font or baptistry or pond or creek or whatever (Clovis, the King of the Franks, is an example). And again, the majority of the Protestant sects baptize their babies and they using pouring. Should we abandon that? Some of the Anglican High Churchers have Eucharistic devotion. Should we get rid of that? If the Baptist suddenly saw the light and started saying the Rosary, should we give it up? Alright, I admit that last one was reaching , but you see what I mean? The most important aspect of it is what the Church says happens, with either an a few drops of water or an entire ocean. As I said, however, I haven’t seen one that I thought was all that well done. Looking at them, I don’t think you could effectively immerse someone in them, I think they could stand in them and have water poured over them, so I generally think, “What’s the point? They may as well stand at the font.” They need to stop the “wreckovations” of the old churches, but if they want to build these baptistries into new ones, they need to design them well.

 

[SummaTheo]

One of the main reasons why the early church baptised in rivers was because there were no churches.

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t think it matters how we’re baptized, as long as it’s done with water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the intent to baptize, but…immersive Baptism is truly Catholic precisely because it was done “when all of the Christians were Catholic.” From the Apostolic age to about the 4th century, it was the norm. People may have had the water poured over them, but they went down into the font or baptistry or pond or creek or whatever (Clovis, the King of the Franks, is an example). And again, the majority of the Protestant sects baptize their babies and they using pouring. Should we abandon that? Some of the Anglican High Churchers have Eucharistic devotion. Should we get rid of that? If the Baptist suddenly saw the light and started saying the Rosary, should we give it up? Alright, I admit that last one was reaching , but you see what I mean? The most important aspect of it is what the Church says happens, with either an a few drops of water or an entire ocean. As I said, however, I haven’t seen one that I thought was all that well done. Looking at them, I don’t think you could effectively immerse someone in them, I think they could stand in them and have water poured over them, so I generally think, “What’s the point? They may as well stand at the font.” They need to stop the “wreckovations” of the old churches, but if they want to build these baptistries into new ones, they need to design them well.

This all reminds me how not read in catholic tradition and practice many catholics of today are: as where those of old had TO KNOW BY MEMORY ALL THE CHURCH’S TEACHINGS EVEN IN LITURGY. What are you saying? “The church now wants to know more than the apostles”? You make no sense here. Let’s not forget the many heresies which arose even by bishops back a little after the death of the apostles, with bishops such as Arius.
There is a minimalist/simplistic tendency in many catholics here in America today who because of their subjective ideas, and loss of their sense of church building beauty and architecture, seem to go with what dear pastor Jim somewhere says, after all he is pastor even if he destroys our gothic, baroque church, puts a swimming pool in the entrance, puts the Blessed sacrament to the side, puts electric candles, puts a risen Christ on a cross behind or above the altar, uses an electric saw to remove the confessionals with a screen/grille, removes the kneelers, etc etc, all the LATEST protestant novelties. After all we must foster ecumenism? NOT!

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t think it matters how we’re baptized, as long as it’s done with water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the intent to baptize, but…immersive Baptism is truly Catholic precisely because it was done “when all of the Christians were Catholic.” From the Apostolic age to about the 4th century, it was the norm. People may have had the water poured over them, but they went down into the font or baptistry or pond or creek or whatever (Clovis, the King of the Franks, is an example). And again, the majority of the Protestant sects baptize their babies and they using pouring. Should we abandon that? Some of the Anglican High Churchers have Eucharistic devotion. Should we get rid of that? If the Baptist suddenly saw the light and started saying the Rosary, should we give it up? Alright, I admit that last one was reaching , but you see what I mean? The most important aspect of it is what the Church says happens, with either an a few drops of water or an entire ocean. As I said, however, I haven’t seen one that I thought was all that well done. Looking at them, I don’t think you could effectively immerse someone in them, I think they could stand in them and have water poured over them, so I generally think, “What’s the point? They may as well stand at the font.” They need to stop the “wreckovations” of the old churches, but if they want to build these baptistries into new ones, they need to design them well.

Then came the Council of Trent and corrected the abuses: hence the Church became more disciplined with time, and with Trent it became Catholic.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t think it matters how we’re baptized, as long as it’s done with water, using the Trinitarian formula, with the intent to baptize, but…immersive Baptism is truly Catholic precisely because it was done “when all of the Christians were Catholic.” From the Apostolic age to about the 4th century, it was the norm. People may have had the water poured over them, but they went down into the font or baptistry or pond or creek or whatever (Clovis, the King of the Franks, is an example). And again, the majority of the Protestant sects baptize their babies and they using pouring. Should we abandon that? Some of the Anglican High Churchers have Eucharistic devotion. Should we get rid of that? If the Baptist suddenly saw the light and started saying the Rosary, should we give it up? Alright, I admit that last one was reaching , but you see what I mean? The most important aspect of it is what the Church says happens, with either an a few drops of water or an entire ocean. As I said, however, I haven’t seen one that I thought was all that well done. Looking at them, I don’t think you could effectively immerse someone in them, I think they could stand in them and have water poured over them, so I generally think, “What’s the point? They may as well stand at the font.” They need to stop the “wreckovations” of the old churches, but if they want to build these baptistries into new ones, they need to design them well.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

Our parish baptisry was in the vestibule of the church. It was lovely, but it was a bit cold, temperature as well as hospitable.

Then came the big clay pot. It looked a lot like a plant potter. My elder granddaughter almost pulled it over in an effort to keep herself out of the “bath” when she was baptized (she was 2, her sister was five months and had no complaints). She wasn’t the only child to do this of the over 1 but under seven set.

So, the flower pot got redecorated. It now has a bubbler to keep the water moving. It has no-slip faux stones to keep catechumates, sponsors, priests and deacons from slipping. It has real seasonal shrubs and greenery that change out. It is anchored to the floor. It is up front within the sanctuary. It blends into the architecture and scheme lot better than the flower pot.

The holy water fonts are still there at all the entrances.

Some of the High Church Anglicans and Lutherans say the Rosary. Some use a format of all Our Fathers, but others say the real deal.

 

[misericordie]

OutinChgoburbs:

I think this makes a lot of sense.

Our parish baptisry was in the vestibule of the church. It was lovely, but it was a bit cold, temperature as well as hospitable.

Then came the big clay pot. It looked a lot like a plant potter. My elder granddaughter almost pulled it over in an effort to keep herself out of the “bath” when she was baptized (she was 2, her sister was five months and had no complaints). She wasn’t the only child to do this of the over 1 but under seven set.

So, the flower pot got redecorated. It now has a bubbler to keep the water moving. It has no-slip faux stones to keep catechumates, sponsors, priests and deacons from slipping. It has real seasonal shrubs and greenery that change out. It is anchored to the floor. It is up front within the sanctuary. It blends into the architecture and scheme lot better than the flower pot.

The holy water fonts are still there at all the entrances.

Some of the High Church Anglicans and Lutherans say the Rosary. Some use a format of all Our Fathers, but others say the real deal.

Oh yes, not to mention that at one church that was diocesan and had one of those (thank God the orthodox NEW PASTOR had it destroyed, as he put it so if a later new liberal pastor came he could not re-put it, and if he still wanted to, the liberal one can waste money and BUY a new one) a cpouple of times, some parish members almost fell in there(imagine the law suits?). My favorite though is the homeless people comming from the streey to was their arm pits in those things in a semi-catholic REDEPTORIST ORDER CHURCH here. I went yesterday, and made a covenant with God that=NO MORE!! I will only go to ORTHODOX Masses and Parishes,still kind of shopping around, and looking for one that has a pastor who is orthodox, and has onions to tell the truth as reagrds liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

Then came the Council of Trent and corrected the abuses: hence the Church became more disciplined with time, and with Trent it became Catholic.

I’m sorry, you’re saying the Church didn’t become Catholic until the Council of Trent?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

This all reminds me how not read in catholic tradition and practice many catholics of today are: as where those of old had TO KNOW BY MEMORY ALL THE CHURCH’S TEACHINGS EVEN IN LITURGY. What are you saying? “The church now wants to know more than the apostles”? You make no sense here. Let’s not forget the many heresies which arose even by bishops back a little after the death of the apostles, with bishops such as Arius.
There is a minimalist/simplistic tendency in many catholics here in America today who because of their subjective ideas, and loss of their sense of church building beauty and architecture, seem to go with what dear pastor Jim somewhere says, after all he is pastor even if he destroys our gothic, baroque church, puts a swimming pool in the entrance, puts the Blessed sacrament to the side, puts electric candles, puts a risen Christ on a cross behind or above the altar, uses an electric saw to remove the confessionals with a screen/grille, removes the kneelers, etc etc, all the LATEST protestant novelties. After all we must foster ecumenism? NOT!

Misericordie: There is no need to be insulting. I am fairly well read in the traditions of the Church.

I’m not disagreeing with you in terms of Church architecture. I’m disagreeing with your assessment that these are Protestant innovations. This can’t be logically or rationally said, as from the Apostolic Age to the 4th Century, immersion was the norm. It may have not been exclusively done, but it was the norm. Yes, it changed, because the Church has the authority to govern the Sacraments, as long as the essential (matter, form, and intent) are not altered. It cannot be regarded as Protestant innovation, as the overwhelming majority of the Protestant sects baptized their babies like we do, pouring water over their heads at a font.

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

I’m sorry, you’re saying the Church didn’t become Catholic until the Council of Trent?

The Mass became CODIFIED, many abuses were stopped, such as Communion on the hand, etc. And ORDER instead of what everyone wants in each single location became the norm. Picture the church as a person, she grew up.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

The Mass became CODIFIED, many abuses were stopped, such as Communion on the hand, etc. And ORDER instead of what everyone wants in each single location became the norm. Picture the church as a person, she grew up.

You have an unhistorical view of Church history. No one stopped communion in the hand because they said it was an abuse, it developed as a Eucharistic devotion. No one ever alledged that it was an abuse, “We have to stop doing this because it’s abusive.” Also, re: your picture of the Church as a person who grew up, has she stopped growing? If not, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the idea of lots of different innovations, should you? After all, she’s growing up! Or did everything come to a dead stop at Trent?

 

[misericordie]

JKirkLVNV:

You have an unhistorical view of Church history. No one stopped communion in the hand because they said it was an abuse, it developed as a Eucharistic devotion. No one ever alledged that it was an abuse!

Since you are getting defensive, let me immitate: If you take the time to read Aquinas’ Summa Thelogica=he mentions that nothing but the consecrated hands of the priest are to touch the sacred host. Furtehrmore, and you well know that it was only late in the papacy of Paul VI, one of the most difficult times for the church, as per this pope lacked courage and folded many times. That the OPTION by special permission (indult) was Communion in the hand allowed for the USA. However as it stands now that’s the OPTION, not the norm.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

misericordie:

Since you are getting defensive, let me immitate: If you take the time to read Aquinas’ Summa Thelogica=he mentions that nothing but the consecrated hands of the priest are to touch the sacred host. Furtehrmore, and you well know that it was only late in the papacy of Paul VI, one of the most difficult times for the church, as per this pope lacked courage and folded many times. That the OPTION by special permission (indult) was Communion in the hand allowed for the USA. However as it stands now that’s the OPTION, not the norm.

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.