Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't unbaptize people. God doesn't follow the rules of man. It's the ACT of Baptism, not the words, that matters. It's an act of Faith. Words are irrelevant. According to the UPC/Apostolic Church, anyone who does not baptize the way they do is going to hell. I was raised in that denomination. I
had to blow up my whole life to get out. Words do not matter AT ALL to God.

people invented baptism. God was not involved -- though he apparently liked the idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

Actually a Christian who’s heart breaks at people who wave the banner but leave hurt in their wake.

+1
Cradle Catholic here, and I think the diocese is nuts. Sacraments aren't magic spells. If you think that God withheld baptismal grace because a priest used the wrong pronoun, well, your God is small and petty and circumscribed. Much like you, with your nasty, unkind, mean-spirited words about a person who obviously meant well. So many people who care so very much about whether the table is perfectly set, and not at all about what food is being served, and whether all feel welcome to partake of the bounty.

Also, it's kind of like the flip side of quid mus sumit. Which I learned meant, basically, God will figure it out. Do you trust that, or no?

I agree 100%. The retroactive revocation is simply bizarre. The guy obviously had no bad motive. The entire nit picky perspective of some here is why the Church is losing folks. No substance.

There is no “retroactive revocation.” To begin with, Baptism is irrevocable. The problem here is that it is at best dubious that any baptism occurred, because of the priest’s corruption of the (simple, settled for millennia) sacramental form. The priest’s “motive” is at best irrelevant, and his choice to change the words of the sacramental formula to suit himself suggests that he did not have the required motive “to do what the Church does” in effecting Baptism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

The fact that you can say all this nonsense seriously shows how far down the rabbit hole you have gone. If you could just step outside yourself and read this in a truly objective manner, I can assure you that you would see that you are lost. It is time to come back to the true message of Christ, and not these magical incantations.

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

Actually a Christian who’s heart breaks at people who wave the banner but leave hurt in their wake.

+1
Cradle Catholic here, and I think the diocese is nuts. Sacraments aren't magic spells. If you think that God withheld baptismal grace because a priest used the wrong pronoun, well, your God is small and petty and circumscribed. Much like you, with your nasty, unkind, mean-spirited words about a person who obviously meant well. So many people who care so very much about whether the table is perfectly set, and not at all about what food is being served, and whether all feel welcome to partake of the bounty.

Also, it's kind of like the flip side of quid mus sumit. Which I learned meant, basically, God will figure it out. Do you trust that, or no?

Anonymous wrote:You can't unbaptize people. God doesn't follow the rules of man. It's the ACT of Baptism, not the words, that matters. It's an act of Faith. Words are irrelevant. According to the UPC/Apostolic Church, anyone who does not baptize the way they do is going to hell. I was raised in that denomination. I
had to blow up my whole life to get out. Words do not matter AT ALL to God.

Anonymous wrote:You can't unbaptize people. God doesn't follow the rules of man. It's the ACT of Baptism, not the words, that matters. It's an act of Faith. Words are irrelevant. According to the UPC/Apostolic Church, anyone who does not baptize the way they do is going to hell. I was raised in that denomination. I
had to blow up my whole life to get out. Words do not matter AT ALL to God.

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.