Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Catholic Views on Priesthood Authority


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We believe baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that can never be removed. Nothing can invalidate it. In other words, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave ;) 

So yes, your cousin is still technically Catholic, though now he's a heretic. I'm gettin' the inquisition on the line and giving them his address 😀

😲 Uh Oh. Ill tell him its time to move 😉

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The problem with the baptisms that the Vatican declared invalid is the use of "We baptize you..." instead of "I baptize you..." That's what 3DOP means by "plurality of persons." Multiple people cannot baptize someone -- there is no "we" only "I." The baptisms are invalid because the changed wording is a theologically false position.

 

 Pretty much, with a few clarifying details. Under the consideration of priesthood authority, I'd reiterate that the preferred/recommended/standard/ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest, or deacon. I would change intent/volition to parental consent and reiterate 3DOP's point that if there is no parental consent, then the baptism is unlawful but still valid. Then I would add the category of intent: the person performing the baptism must intend to do what the Church intends. If two kids are playing around and on pours water on another and says the words that's not a valid baptism because they are just playing around -- they don't have the same intention as the Church.

Yes, yes. Smac. I meant what Miserere says with plurality. I see why that was confusing.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Absolutely. I haven't kept up on the details of current events, but I believe that SSPX priests have even been granted jurisdiction to hear confession and witness marriages. 3DOP can clarify if I've gotten that wrong.

Whelp, looks like I'm still Catholic.  Long story, one i'm not in the mood to discuss right but yeah, went through the whole thing.  Mother Church sure doesn't like parting with souls do they? 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, this is what I was taught.

We must remember that for a Catholic one cannot enter into heaven or be saved if one is not baptized. We have baptism for the dead so our picture of it is entirely different. The urgency of allowing virtually anyone to do a baptism if the baby is about to die is strictly because it is such an urgent sacrament.

Catholics used to believe that a child who was unbaptized went to a place called Limbo instead of heaven, even through of course, no fault of the baby. That belief now has become more flexible I believe.

This further emphasizes the reason for the importance of baptism.

So in an emergency anyone who knows enough about Catholicism could baptize a baby correctly for Catholics to count her as baptized. 

Baptizing the baby would actually be more important than saving her life since her eternity would be involved.

At least that's the way I learned it

High church Protestants were the same at one time as well.  It's amazing how far the denominations here stateside have wandered from the liturgical teachings.  Fun fact, there's even a Lutheran Rosary, the state churches in Europe are cool with it.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, poptart said:

Whelp, looks like I'm still Catholic.  Long story, one i'm not in the mood to discuss right but yeah, went through the whole thing.  Mother Church sure doesn't like parting with souls do they? 

Since you don't have to get baptized again, it makes it easy to start going to Mass again, right..? ;) 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, poptart said:

Whelp, looks like I'm still Catholic.  Long story, one i'm not in the mood to discuss right but yeah, went through the whole thing.  Mother Church sure doesn't like parting with souls do they? 

Yup. So it seems. I'll not be the one to push discussion. But you seem to have possibly pondered this: What good mother could willingly part with her child, whether said free child be happy about it or no? 

I have pondered too and I side with Mom and hope her love will triumph, while acknowledging "the rights" of child resistance, even to its own demise. I have probably spun your ponderings to please myself and misunderstood...awaiting probable clarification or correction that might be forthcoming.

PS: By the way, Mother Church is most accurately understood as "she", singular, not "they" plural. If multiple persons are members of Mother Church, there is but one mind of Christ by which she/they are led. 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Absolutely. I haven't kept up on the details of current events, but I believe that SSPX priests have even been granted jurisdiction to hear confession and witness marriages. 3DOP can clarify if I've gotten that wrong.

I see that 3DOP gave this his imprimatur and nihil obstat with his rep point.  ;)

Yes I am old enough to clearly remember the switch and I never looked at the church the same way after the switch from Latin.  It was just a linguistic shift but so much a part of the church- not only a linguistic shift.

From the Mass, I remember the sentence "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: Sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. "

It is from Luke 7:7 and is roughly translated "Lord, I am not worthy that you enter under my roof, but only say the word and my servant will be healed" and are the words of a Roman centurian who approached Jesus with such faith that he knew that the Lord could heal his servant simply by his word- he did not need to come to his house and enter "under his roof", but that the servant could be healed by Jesus simply saying the words.

But as I grew a little bit older and had a Latin class or two, I realized that possibly those were the exact words the Centurion actually spoke

Suddenly it became not a translation, but a living conversation I could understand on my own!

And the phrase "under my roof" = "sub tectum meum" did not mean the roof of the Centurion's house, but the roof of MY mouth, in receiving the Eucharist.!   The Lord himself was about to enter under MY "tectum", and though I was technically worthy enough to receive communion, was I really WORTHY for the savior of the universe to enter ME??

But then it was all changed to English.

Yes the analogy remained- sort of- but those were no longer the words of a Centurion but the words of whomever decided to translate them that way.  The Latin Vulgate itself actually uses some different words yet with the same sense- but no longer to me the "real words".

Quote

 

Domine, noli vexari: non enim sum dignus ut sub tectum meum intres:

7 propter quod et meipsum non sum dignum arbitratus ut venirem ad te: sed dic verbo, et sanabitur puer meus.

 

The vulgate suggests that the person healed was "my boy" which might have also been a son?  Scholars please comment?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm#007

Anyway, I found that fairly disturbing at the time.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, poptart said:

Whelp, looks like I'm still Catholic.  Long story, one i'm not in the mood to discuss right but yeah, went through the whole thing.  Mother Church sure doesn't like parting with souls do they? 

Yeah, but why did you have to call Miserere a "whelp"?

(joke!  ;) )

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We believe baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that can never be removed. Nothing can invalidate it. In other words, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave ;) 

So yes, your cousin is still technically Catholic, though now he's a heretic. I'm gettin' the inquisition on the line and giving them his address 😀

Quote

The question frequently arises: "Is it necessary for a member of the Council of the Twelve to see the Savior in order to be an apostle?" It is their privilege to see him if occasion requires, but the Lord has taught that there is a stronger witness than seeing a personage, even of seeing the Son of God in a vision. Impressions on the soul that come from the Holy Ghost are far more significant than a vision. When Spirit speaks to spirit, the imprint upon the soul is far more difficult to erase. Every member of the church should have impressions that Jesus is the Son of God indelibly pictured on his soul through the witness of the Holy Ghost.

And this applies also to ordinances "sealed by the Spirit of Promise"

https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book _of_Mormon/02_1nephi/1nephi01/1nephi01_04impressionsonsoul_jfs.htm

(Joseph Fielding Smith, "The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve," Improvement Era 69:979 [Nov. pro 1966])

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Since you don't have to get baptized again, it makes it easy to start going to Mass again, right..? ;) 

The LGBT part, I'm pretty apathetic to most church politics, am all for arming every american to the teeth as well as mandatory miltary training, want public hangings to come back (I'm serious) and America to stop being the worlds punching bag.  I'd either irritate half the parish or get irritated myself and just leave. 

 

Quick correction, that all gets canceled if the parish celebrates the feast days, esp. ones like St. Hubertus.  Also, find a way to get the ambulance corps here stateside like Europe has em.  I want to see this here, good luck.

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, but why did you have to call Miserere a "whelp"?

(joke!  ;) )

 

lol

 

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Yup. So it seems. I'll not be the one to push discussion. But you seem to have possibly pondered this: What good mother could willingly part with her child, whether said free child be happy about it or no? 

I have pondered too and I side with Mom and hope her love will triumph, while acknowledging "the rights" of child resistance, even to its own demise. I have probably spun your ponderings to please myself and misunderstood...awaiting probable clarification or correction that might be forthcoming.

PS: By the way, Mother Church is most accurately understood as "she", singular, not "they" plural. If multiple persons are members of Mother Church, there is but one mind of Christ by which she/they are led. 

That is why I've always loved the Catholic and the Lutheran Church before it was americanized to the degree it has been.  The latter is a shame, the ELCA has ties with the EKD so there are German speaking Parishes that have the old school views of Mary with modern day tolerance towards LGBT folks.  Martin Luther viewed Mary more or less the same as the Catholic Church did, born without sin, was taken up and crowned queen of heaven.  No worthwhile man does anything without a good mom.  From my experneice mom usually does a lot more than the father does, irritates me how most Christians here never consider the sacrifices Mary let alone women in general make for their kids. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I see that 3DOP gave this his imprimatur and nihil obstat with his rep point.  ;)

Yes I am old enough to clearly remember the switch and I never looked at the church the same way after the switch from Latin.  It was just a linguistic shift but so much a part of the church- not only a linguistic shift.

From the Mass, I remember the sentence "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: Sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. "

It is from Luke 7:7 and is roughly translated "Lord, I am not worthy that you enter under my roof, but only say the word and my servant will be healed" and are the words of a Roman centurian who approached Jesus with such faith that he knew that the Lord could heal his servant simply by his word- he did not need to come to his house and enter "under his roof", but that the servant could be healed by Jesus simply saying the words.

But as I grew a little bit older and had a Latin class or two, I realized that possibly those were the exact words the Centurion actually spoke

Suddenly it became not a translation, but a living conversation I could understand on my own!

And the phrase "under my roof" = "sub tectum meum" did not mean the roof of the Centurion's house, but the roof of MY mouth, in receiving the Eucharist.!   The Lord himself was about to enter under MY "tectum", and though I was technically worthy enough to receive communion, was I really WORTHY for the savior of the universe to enter ME??

But then it was all changed to English.

Yes the analogy remained- sort of- but those were no longer the words of a Centurion but the words of whomever decided to translate them that way.  The Latin Vulgate itself actually uses some different words yet with the same sense- but no longer to me the "real words".

The vulgate suggests that the person healed was "my boy" which might have also been a son?  Scholars please comment?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm#007

Anyway, I found that fairly disturbing at the time.

That's an interesting example you give. The new Mass was promulgated officially in Latin and then translated into the various languages. The English translation was done loosely, in the spirit of Vatican II, etc., and thus wasn't true to the Latin. For example, you might remember: Dominus vobiscum. And the response? Et spiritu tuo. That was kept in the Latin of the new Mass. But the English translation was: The Lord be with you. And also with you. It should have been "And with your spirit." That's what the Latin says. But the translators were playing loose for their own purposes (modernize the Church at all costs!).

They did the same with your example. The words of the Centurion remained in the Latin of the new Mass, but the English translation was: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you." The so-called translation totally omitted "under my roof."

Now, there was a new English translation released oh, 9 years ago? that fixed these blatant errors. But I still find the new Mass deficient. It lacks the grandeur and some of the theology of the traditional Mass. This is often compounded by choices the priest and choir and others make, too. Sometimes regular Mass can be so banal, with poorly written folk music passing for sacred hymns, etc.

I converted before I had experienced the traditional Mass. My draw to symbolize had me seek it out. The nearest traditional Mass was 45 minutes away in an SSPX chapel. I was blown away. I felt like I had stepped into the fullness of Catholic worship, the complete banquet, where I had only been given fast food before. All of my senses and faculties were pointed toward God. The beauty of the architecture, stained glass, vestments. The Gregorian chant and sacred hymns. The timeless Latin. Incense. Bells. Beauty! And since it was SSPX, they took their liturgy very seriously. I was amazed. I continued attending until the FSSP moved into the diocese. This is a priestly fraternity that doesn't have any canonical issues and sets up shop when invited by the bishop. They likewise offer the traditional sacraments with the same seriousness.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I see that 3DOP gave this his imprimatur and nihil obstat with his rep point.  ;)

Yes I am old enough to clearly remember the switch and I never looked at the church the same way after the switch from Latin.  It was just a linguistic shift but so much a part of the church- not only a linguistic shift.

From the Mass, I remember the sentence "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: Sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. "

It is from Luke 7:7 and is roughly translated "Lord, I am not worthy that you enter under my roof, but only say the word and my servant will be healed" and are the words of a Roman centurian who approached Jesus with such faith that he knew that the Lord could heal his servant simply by his word- he did not need to come to his house and enter "under his roof", but that the servant could be healed by Jesus simply saying the words.

But as I grew a little bit older and had a Latin class or two, I realized that possibly those were the exact words the Centurion actually spoke

Suddenly it became not a translation, but a living conversation I could understand on my own!

And the phrase "under my roof" = "sub tectum meum" did not mean the roof of the Centurion's house, but the roof of MY mouth, in receiving the Eucharist.!   The Lord himself was about to enter under MY "tectum", and though I was technically worthy enough to receive communion, was I really WORTHY for the savior of the universe to enter ME??

But then it was all changed to English.

Yes the analogy remained- sort of- but those were no longer the words of a Centurion but the words of whomever decided to translate them that way.  The Latin Vulgate itself actually uses some different words yet with the same sense- but no longer to me the "real words".

The vulgate suggests that the person healed was "my boy" which might have also been a son?  Scholars please comment?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm#007

Anyway, I found that fairly disturbing at the time.

Mark, that is a wonderful way of understanding the centurion's words, as well as the way the Holy Ghost would intend Catholics to understand the words with a more sublime meaning (of course only if the Catholic Church is true and Jesus is really present, etc. and so forth). So this was taught to you in the 50's? Where did it go? Thank you for pulling it out of obscurity!

You have enriched my experience of Holy Mass. I had thought only of the roof of the house! Beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing that. I could never forget such an insight if I tried. I am embarrassed that I have never heard of this (not so much for myself, but for the Church for not telling me today) and have to learn it from you! I happily bestow upon this post my imprimatur. But nihil obstat is inadequate for this. More than nothing objectionable. Most inspiring. I am going to be talking about this with friends to see who knows about it. Have you heard this idea, Jesse? It isn't like my head has been buried in the sand. How could I not have heard this?  

Not forgetting our differences, Mark, I pray God bless you, and God love you. You are now one of my countless benefactors whatever you may ever say against the church of your youth, and the church of my maturity. In one way, (stream of consciousness time) I actually am more a defender of the church of your youth, and an opponent of the "church" of my maturity! 

Rory 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, poptart said:

That is why I've always loved the Catholic and the Lutheran Church before it was americanized to the degree it has been.  The latter is a shame, the ELCA has ties with the EKD so there are German speaking Parishes that have the old school views of Mary with modern day tolerance towards LGBT folks.  Martin Luther viewed Mary more or less the same as the Catholic Church did, born without sin, was taken up and crowned queen of heaven.  No worthwhile man does anything without a good mom.  From my experneice mom usually does a lot more than the father does, irritates me how most Christians here never consider the sacrifices Mary let alone women in general make for their kids. 

Many more Catholic converts seem to migrate from Anglicanism to Anglo-Catholic to Catholic. I have a married niece, that I barely know who seems to be on the way to Rome on this road. There are many roads...but if you keep on going...they all lead to...Rome. Starting as fundamental independent Baptists, we eventually took a more German route. My brother got married in the ELCA and my parents went for a while. I do not know the EKD? Pray tell.

Over the course of the last almost forty years, we went Baptist with developments that were frowned upon by peers (yours truly as a 30 yr. old "man of the cloth", what a joke), high church Reformed, some no church days, a little Missouri Synod, considering LDS, Islam, and Bahai (only me, not the frau), some Wisconsin Synod, then Novus Ordo Catholic, then Traditional Catholic for the longest period, 15 years (SSPX). Those Wisconsins would be almost okay if they just had Holy Orders!  

Are we home yet, speaking after an earthly pilgrimage fashion? Maybe. We might need to go to church for another 20 years still or even a little more. The SSPX is not the Church and we (my wife and I) know it. The Society is not exactly a religious order, but it probably has a shelf life of its own, much as the religious orders. I am glad to believe they (the priests and bishops of the Society) know this, since they taught it to me. I have learned from the SSPX, that to be Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church has no "shelf life" until, as they say, the day of Jesus Christ, when judgment morning has rolled around (trying to sound Baptist, heh. Ever hear of Lester Roloff? You could google I bet.). Enough levity. I think we will always be home (speaking after the earthly fashion) wherever we can find Traditional Catholics who believe that the Church was built upon the person of St. Peter, who drank of the chalice that our Lord did, and was crucified upside down in the Eternal City.  

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You have enriched my experience of Holy Mass. I had thought only of the roof of the house! Beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing that. I could never forget such an insight if I tried. I am embarrassed that I have never heard of this (not so much for myself, but for the Church for not telling me today) and have to learn it from you! I happily bestow upon this post my imprimatur. But nihil obstat is inadequate for this. More than nothing objectionable. Most inspiring. I am going to be talking about this with friends to see who knows about it. Have you heard this idea, Jesse? It isn't like my head has been buried in the sand. How could I not have heard this?

HI Rory,

Isn't it great that the Holy Spirit can teach us in unusual ways, even through a heretical humanist LDS post-modernist Rorty-ite like Mark? ;) 

I had heard this before. When the English translation of the Novus Ordo changed, I was poking around the internet to see what the changes were and how they were being explained. A website explained it the way Mark explained it. I hadn't really thought of it before like that way either -- I just had a vague feeling/understanding about entering me, but hadn't connected all the dots.

I did a quick internet search and the top website explaining the translation change has it. I can't remember if it's the same website I looked at years ago, but it says this:

Quote

This response calls to mind the words that were spoken by the Roman centurion to Jesus when he begged the Lord to heal his sick servant in Matthew 8.

In this instance we are asking the Lord to heal not our servant, but our very soul, our inmost being. We are acknowledging that we’re about to receive Him under the “roof” of our mouths and thus to welcome Him into our physical abode; into our bodies, the dwelling place of the soul.

God bless you and Mark!

Jesse

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Are we home yet, speaking after an earthly pilgrimage fashion? Maybe. We might need to go to church for another 20 years still or even a little more. The SSPX is not the Church and we (my wife and I) know it. The Society is not exactly a religious order, but it probably has a shelf life of its own, much as the religious orders. I am glad to believe they (the priests and bishops of the Society) know this, since they taught it to me. I have learned from the SSPX, that to be Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church has no "shelf life" until, as they say, the day of Jesus Christ, when judgment morning has rolled around (trying to sound Baptist, heh. Ever hear of Lester Roloff? You could google I bet.). Enough levity. I think we will always be home (speaking after the earthly fashion) wherever we can find Traditional Catholics who believe that the Church was built upon the person of St. Peter, who drank of the chalice that our Lord did, and was crucified upside down in the Eternal City.  

Hey Rory,

I was taught the same in the SSPX, but I also got the feeling in informal discussions that some who attend SSPX chapels don't see it the same way. It's sad when there are divisions between traditional Catholic communities (I'm thinking of the sniping that happens sometimes between SSPX and FSSP).

I hadn't noticed that you live in St. Mary's until now. I guess I don't pay much attention to things written under people's avatar. How long have you been there? It's seems like a bit of a haven. How do the local non-SSPX feel about the influx of the trads? Is there a local Novus Ordo church? How are relations there? I've been curious. (derail time...)

Link to comment
On 8/9/2020 at 9:43 AM, 3DOP said:

Many more Catholic converts seem to migrate from Anglicanism to Anglo-Catholic to Catholic. I have a married niece, that I barely know who seems to be on the way to Rome on this road. There are many roads...but if you keep on going...they all lead to...Rome. Starting as fundamental independent Baptists, we eventually took a more German route. My brother got married in the ELCA and my parents went for a while. I do not know the EKD? Pray tell.

Over the course of the last almost forty years, we went Baptist with developments that were frowned upon by peers (yours truly as a 30 yr. old "man of the cloth", what a joke), high church Reformed, some no church days, a little Missouri Synod, considering LDS, Islam, and Bahai (only me, not the frau), some Wisconsin Synod, then Novus Ordo Catholic, then Traditional Catholic for the longest period, 15 years (SSPX). Those Wisconsins would be almost okay if they just had Holy Orders!  

Are we home yet, speaking after an earthly pilgrimage fashion? Maybe. We might need to go to church for another 20 years still or even a little more. The SSPX is not the Church and we (my wife and I) know it. The Society is not exactly a religious order, but it probably has a shelf life of its own, much as the religious orders. I am glad to believe they (the priests and bishops of the Society) know this, since they taught it to me. I have learned from the SSPX, that to be Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church has no "shelf life" until, as they say, the day of Jesus Christ, when judgment morning has rolled around (trying to sound Baptist, heh. Ever hear of Lester Roloff? You could google I bet.). Enough levity. I think we will always be home (speaking after the earthly fashion) wherever we can find Traditional Catholics who believe that the Church was built upon the person of St. Peter, who drank of the chalice that our Lord did, and was crucified upside down in the Eternal City.  

I've seen a lot of people convert mostly for family reasons, especially Children.  Lets face it, especially stateside Catholic Schools are top notch.  That, and compared to others they're more affordable.  The Parish i spent some time in only charged like 1,500 for tuition (was elementary through middle school). Taught by nuns and all.  Granted, you had to be a member of the parish but that's a steal.  The EKD is the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, Germany's largest Protestant Body.  https://www.ekd.de/en/

I never strayed too much, I'm not too open minded on matters of religion mostly because of how mom and I have been treated.  I know i've not been too popular here because I do judge people on their actions, religious affiliations included, truth hurts.  That being said, if you take a good look at Christianity in the USA, well can't blame people I think.  The Missouri Synod is paying the price for their bitter back in the day.  What makes my blood boil about them is that they usually don't have congregations for the poor nor elderly for this reason.  In order to have a Missouri synod Church you have to pay a fee hence why most new Lutheran Churches tend to be in white middle class/upper middle class suburbs.  To be fair I can partially understand the need for this, unlike Germany there is no Church tax so they need funding. That being said, it makes me sick how entitled and backstabby religious people here can be.  They wonder why now millenials either want nothing to do with them nor stay long yet won't take a look in the mirror.  The ELCA is a bit better, not much but they still get a huge pass from me because they not only do more for the poor, they are LGBT accepting just like the EKD is.  Also, they have very friendly ecumenical relations, there's a few churches/parishes here that have EKD (basically real/normal Lutheran services) in German and English.  Know I'm a stickler over that but considering how degenerate a lot of US families are I've always stuck to my guns while watching those around me burn and collapse.  After how my life's been, it paid off.

I think that's about how that goes especially stateside.  I have older friends who've told me what we're seeing now is more or less what people in the 60s went through, it took at least 10 years to recover from the riots and chaos, I think it's going to take longer this time.  A lot of people who fled the USA back then did come back when times improved, we'll see this time.  That being said, I think things here are just harder for most because of the USA's culture of greed, everyone wants something for nothing and when they don't get their way many adopt the if I can't have mine no one can attitude.  Considering the long term consiquences that can have, big suprise anyone with a good job and something to lose (like a family) looses interest in religion.  It's sad it has to be this way and it shouldn't yet here we are and there it is.  I posted a youtube link for the Order of Malta's Ambulance corps, I wish we could have stuff like that here but due to the laws and letigious nature of this country, well doesn't look like we will anytime soon.  They're not the only one, various other orders do similar stuff.  The Order of St. Lazarus runs more than a few food banks with rosaries stuffed in the goodie bags, also because that order is very nurse friendly big suprise they do a lot of medical/ambulatory stuff.  If it's holy orders you're curious about it's not just Catholics who have em, the Order of Malta has a protestant branch, supposedly they got some dispensation a long time ago so they're there. 

https://www.johanniter.de/die-johanniter/johanniter-unfall-hilfe/

As always, there's some noble bigwig involved. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Oscar_of_Prussia_(born_1959)

I'd agree, all roads lead to Rome.  Thing is, at least with me it's past treatment and poltiics that makes me keep my head down.  People here really stirred the pot and now it's their children/grandchildren who are suffering for their entitlement.  This was why I had said in the past I think it's a bad idea for the LDS church to get too friendly with Christiandom here stateside, I for one think they're a better class of people than your average American, why assoicate with trouble makers.  They've actually tried to make things better, salvage the boyscouts and despite getting spit on for it they still try to help out.  They throw money at Catholic Charities and while splinter groups here complain it was the president of the LDS church who was the first to extend the hand of friendship to Pope Francis.  That being said, I do have my eyes on the future, if you're in medical here and are looking for alternatives to corporate medicine as well as opportunities abroad, the church is a solid option.  The Catholic Church has been building a lot of hospitals, especially in rural areas.  I like how they're pro life too, easy to tell the bad guys to back off when you control the purse strings.  He who has the gold makes the rules...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-catholic-bishops-are-shaping-health-care-in-rural-america/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/health/catholic-hospitals-procedures.html

Corporate medicine disgusts me as well as how the elderly, poor and mentally ill are treated.  I've been splashed twice so getting in would be a shoe in for me.  I've met Catholics and some Lutherans who served missions overseas, they're older and are terrified of how medicine here is.  Times like that make me glad for my baptism, gets you in the kingdom and well, as offensive as this may be to some you are still judged for it in a lot of circles.  It's sad of often people here take sacrements for granted to the damage of their children, i've seen it a lot and the friends I have from here who have sisters, i'm seeing it with them too. 

Link to comment
On 8/7/2020 at 3:11 PM, MiserereNobis said:

If you would like to read why LDS baptism is not considered valid, here is the full document (it's not long and is respectful and reasonable from a Catholic point-of-view).

I remember coming across this (or perhaps something very similar written by then Cardinal Ratzinger) before.

I understand what is meant about the differences between our two church's ordinances in terms of Form and Intent - though, frankly, I think the objection on Form is rather weak as it's basically just a duplication / repackaging of the Intent objection. 

Be that as it may, I guess my question would still be: Under extreme circumstances, why couldn't an informed Latter-Day Saint perform a valid Catholic baptism?

I mean, I'm quite confident that I understand what the Catholic Church intends to do with respect to the sacrament of baptism.  

I understand the Catholic church's position when it comes to the ontological nature of God, the doctrine of original sin, the purpose of the sacraments, etc.

So what then would prevent me from formulating the necessary intent to perform a valid Catholic baptism? 

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I remember coming across this (or perhaps something very similar written by then Cardinal Ratzinger) before.

I understand what is meant about the differences between our two church's ordinances in terms of Form and Intent - though, frankly, I think the objection on Form is rather weak as it's basically just a duplication / repackaging of the Intent objection. 

Be that as it may, I guess my question would still be: Under extreme circumstances, why couldn't an informed Latter-Day Saint perform a valid Catholic baptism?

Basically, because an informed Latter-day Saint would not be doing what the Catholic church does when administering baptism.  What  the Catholic church intends to do, maybe, but not what the Catholic church actually does.

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I mean, I'm quite confident that I understand what the Catholic Church intends to do with respect to the sacrament of baptism.  

But what the Catholic church intends to do isn't what the Catholic church actually does.  At least not necessarily.  Just as what we intend to do with the priesthood we have isn't necessarily what we actually do.

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I understand the Catholic church's position when it comes to the ontological nature of God, the doctrine of original sin, the purpose of the sacraments, etc.

So what then would prevent me from formulating the necessary intent to perform a valid Catholic baptism? 

Would you intend that the person you baptize with the priesthood of God become a member of the Catholic church?  I think not.  Your intent would be that they become a member of the true church of Jesus Christ.

That is the big difference.  Which church the baptized person would be joining.

Link to comment
On 8/8/2020 at 11:20 AM, smac97 said:
  • Priesthood Authority - Apparently not a concern?  Anyone can officiate in a baptism?

Basically they don't mind others doing what they would do themselves.  Delegating some things to people who are not ordained to an office of the priesthood themselves.  Just sanctioning that work as their own work, if they approve.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Would you intend that the person you baptize with the priesthood of God become a member of the Catholic church?  I think not.

Actually yes, my intention would be for them to become a member of the Holy Catholic Church. 

And I wouldn't be performing the ordinance using the priesthood with which I have been ordained.

I would be performing the ordinance that the Catholic church intends - just as any other lay person or heretic is capable of performing. 

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Actually yes, my intention would be for them to become a member of the Holy Catholic Church. 

And I wouldn't be performing the ordinance using the priesthood with which I have been ordained.

I would be performing the ordinance that the Catholic church intends - just as any other lay person or heretic is capable of performing. 

 

And you are a member of OUR Church... a latter-day saint???   Hmm, I dunno, they might be willing to make a special exception in your case.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And you are a member of OUR Church... a latter-day saint???   

Dyed in the wool, true blue - through and through. 

 

Quote

Hmm, I dunno, they might be willing to make a special exception in your case.

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Are there (or could there ever be) exceptions to the rule?

Or is it just a universal axiom that Latter-day Saints can never perform a valid baptism - regardless of how well informed they are about Catholic doctrine, practice, and belief. 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...