John the baptist required repentance before baptism.In his view, pointing out sin is hitting them over the head with a hammer. Telling your brother or sister they are sinning as scripture demands that we do, and Jesus did is not nice enough. We are also driving people away from the truth by telling them the truth.Or tell that they were living outside the Truth?
I think you’ve got it right… Because by following the virtues and accepting the Sacraments with an honest approach, anyone can learn Truth without ever being told what the Truth is. It comes naturally I think, and for some, it can take a lifetime.
Jesus loved many by being uncompromising with them. Notably with His teaching on the necessity of the Eucharist in John 6 - He stuck to His guns and then watched many walk when they would not accept it. He even challenged the Apostles as to whether they too would walk away.
Since as a deacon, I can only baptize up to age of seven except in case of possible death, as long as I have one parent who has legal authorty requesting, and I can be satified that there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic, no.So is there anyone that you wouldn’t baptize?
We don’t know that Christ 'lost" the rich young man, we only know that at that moment the man was not able to give up all he had. He walked away knowing he had to change his life and dercern in a way he hadn’t previously considered. The young man by all accounts was a very religious man, he had lived his life according to the law, he was a good jew of faith. Christ was turning things upside down, just following the law was not enough. You had to be willing to give of yourself for others, use your wealth to help and care for others, change who he was. This is not an easy message not even today to follow, it takes time for many to do so if ever.
Christ “lost” the Rich Young Man, he also “lost” those who walked away after his Eucharistic discourse. He commanded people to repent and follow him. Not keep doing what they were doing and it was fine and they would enter heaven. The gate is narrow.
I guess Jesus isn’t as simple as some people suppose.
I find the WWJD thing annoying.In his view, pointing out sin is hitting them over the head with a hammer. Telling your brother or sister they are sinning as scripture demands that we do, and Jesus did is not nice enough. We are also driving people away from the truth by telling them the truth.
Our PM conversation is quite disheartening, depressing actually. No wonder the laity is so confused; the clergy are leading the confusion.
It’s quite embarrassing and I do apologize to all here for this.
Can anyone tell me…how is being called a traditionalist a dirty word or an insult? in fact, I resemble that remark.
No doubt that Catholics need to believe what the Church teaches as Truth. But do you really think a non Catholic is capable of acting on Truth without ever receiving the Sacraments? Wouldn’t it be just ‘going through the motions’ void of actual truth, if it were even possible…?
Yes it is possible for a non-catholic to act on Truth.
Before becoming Catholic, candidates need only believe what the Church teaches as truth. I don’t think they necessarily need to act on it… Yet.I find the WWJD thing annoying.
When ever that is brought up I always think of two events in the life of Jesus.
[BIBLEDRB]John 8:1-11[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus did not condemn her but he did tell her to sin no more.
[BIBLEDRB]John 4:16-18[/BIBLEDRB]
Here Jesus does point out the sin.
How is what Deacon Lapey did any different? Here Jesus says to a woman who is living in sin that she is doing so, the deacon did exactly that.
Please those who think he did wrong how they would do differently.
Also I do not understand the idea that anyone who requests baptism should receive it. So now any non-Catholic who comes into a parish should be given what they want, no question?
I am thoroughly confused.
I disagree… I think it is their belief. The acting comes only after the sacraments, which bring Graces.
Yes before becoming candidate they only need to believe what the Church Teaches as truth, but before they are received they must act on it by making a profession of faith if they are already baptized or accepting baptism if they have not been baptized.
You’re wrong on this point as well.
Deacon,In his view, pointing out sin is hitting them over the head with a hammer. Telling your brother or sister they are sinning as scripture demands that we do, and Jesus did is not nice enough. We are also driving people away from the truth by telling them the truth.
Our PM conversation is quite disheartening, depressing actually. No wonder the laity is so confused; the clergy are leading the confusion.
It’s quite embarrassing and I do apologize to all here for this.
Can anyone tell me…how is being called a traditionalist a dirty word or an insult? in fact, I resemble that remark.
Remember what James says about faith without works? It is dead. Is ‘believing what the Church teaches’ but not ‘acting on those beliefs’, to use your terminology, not the very definition of faith without works?
Yes they can and must. In this case the action would be to seek out RCIA, seek out counceling to bless the marriage, seek out adoption by the boyfriend of the boy then he could legitimately request baptism.
I would back and look at the canon and the falcalties of the deacon. The age of reason by the canon is age 7, at that point only a preist by permission can do so since the canon states that they are to be baptised and confirmed, and it to be done by the same celbrant at the same time. Since a deacon cannot confirm under any circumstances he cannot baptize over the age of 7. If you have been doing so, the baptisms are valid but illicit even with the direction of your pastor.
You have it wrong deacon. The law requires that ministers give the sacraments only to those who are properly disposed to receive them. Hence priests don’t marry someone who already has a valid existing marriage, nor offer absolution to the manifestly unrepentant. Because such are not properly disposed to receive them.
The Apostles were in Communion with Christ physically the moment His voice entered their eardrum… He was their Sacrament… Like our Eucharist.
Deacon,
I can speak for my self. Christ sid he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. I’ve seen a lot a stone throwing including by a member of clergy and not much compassion. Not casting stones nor am I acting without compassion. Not teaching the truth is much less compassionate.
On this converstion, many are willing to condemn a innocent child and deny him baptism in the Body of Christ and the promise of the Kingdom of God because his mother is not the right kind of person, although she is seeking, perhpas lead by the Spirit the truth of the our Lord Jesus Christ for him. This is the part where you go off the deep end and infer that anyone here has condemmed a young child.
The law, the law must be followed, well the law also states that when a scarament is requested it cannot be denied, and the law gives us instructions in ways that it can be done. Now we are making progress.
To be pastoral doesn’t mean you don’t follow the law, it means to help people to realize the truth, and to help them make thier lives right with Jesus. A family comes to me as described by the original poster, yes I will work to find and do waht I can within the laws of the church to help the family and bring all of them into the body of Christ. :thumbsup:Hip Hip Hooray!!! You must know however, just agreeing to baptism in this case is not following the law, and thereis no portion of the law that allows it. Now if this lady had come into my office, I would imagine her feelings when she left would have been quite different than they are now, and I would have told her the same answer as the priest, because it is the only option in this case. But there would have been a relationship started, and there would have been a group of follow up meetings and by the next time RCIA would come around, there probably would be commitment.
Not once did Christ required repentance before he healed someone, he heal them and forgave their sins, through His loving actions he brought people to Himself and condemed those who’s only interest was to have control through the law. That is when traditionalist is a bad word.I think you are confusing Pharasaic with traditional. I follow the guide that I was taught from the C of CL, that is what we are charged with, both of us.
I am cautious in calling people out as sinners, and never in public and certainly never through a relative. Most people realize thier sinfullness and are looking for ways to change. Many also need to feel that they can be accepted despite of thier sinfullness, this is what Christ did in his table ministry, he first invited them to be with him and he then changed their lives and brought them the truth. You have no idea what you are talking about here. You have judged me without knowing any more than the little bit I wrote in a post earlier. I never sopke with teh family member, I spoke to the young woman, I had been speaking with teh young lady since she and her girfriend were about 16 or so. She is now in her mid 20’s. I never spoke with anyone but these two.
I give no appolize for the way I work and minister. I also know that I am a poor instrument for the Lord, that I need to keep the doors open, that it is He who does the true work of conversion.
