That is not how sorcery works
3 Likes
[Also answering @belovedvillain here]
Well, the can deal with this quickly, if they wanted to. They have teh theological framework. The Pope can declare Ex Cathedra that everything is OK because there was no intentionality, and don’t do it again please. Or, given the hesitation surrounding Ex Cathedra statements, he can issue an encyclical and declare what he wants through that. The Opus Dei types might fuss, but they’ll fuss anyway.
4 Likes
Putting aside the “is God that pedantic” and “how many layers down does this go” questions, I quite like the irony this provides.
When one-a them mouth-breathin’, God-fearin’, progress-hatin’ tools asserts that they’re not gonna pay any attention to anyone’s preferred pronouns because only librulls would worry about something like that, it’s going be great to be able to “this you?” the conversation with this news item.
6 Likes
Can we just accept that this is superstitious nonsense and tax these charlatans already? How can anyone with half a brain cell think that a deity that is powerful enough to create all of reality could give a crap that someone said “We” instead of “I” and therefore will condemn innocent faithful followers of good spirit because one of his salesmen screwed up the fine print? This does not make any sense at all.
2 Likes
Wow, think of how many people are affected by this incidental change in wording. How many cursed marriages, how many eternally damned children, how many invalidated priesthoods. If only the whole thing wasn’t a made up sacrament with absolutely no actual impact on the physical world. And before you argue that what matters is what people feel upon learning they aren’t actually Catholic, welp, I can only shrug.
2 Likes
This is an odd thing for the RCC to quibble over, considering a far worse problem that they continue to ignore.
When Jesus Christ was baptized, he travelled a great distance not only to have it performed by someone with the proper priesthood authority, but also to have it performed properly: he suffered the inconvenience of being fully immersed for the rite. The immersion and rising out of the water symbolizes burial and rebirth. Let that sink in. Nothing less than complete immersion was sufficient even for the Savior, who was perfect.
When the Catholic church sanctioned baptism by sprinkling water, or by incomplete immersion (e.g., they don’t see a problem with part of the body momentarily protruding from the water so the person is never entirely underwater), they effectively removed all symbolism from the rite, and by so doing, rendered it completely ineffectual. The intentions of the participants are irrelevant if the symbolism is removed.
This could really be worrisome for the devout. This error has been going on for decades ? Some people who were baptized may have already passed away, which means that scenario really did play out (in some people’s minds). Imagine that you show up at the pearly gates, get denied entry, and you are sent to hell, or that in-between state called purgatory (I think) for all eternity. And it wasn’t even your fault! What a fcked up system!
Mormons: We got this.
4 Likes
Couldn’t St. Peter do a search-and-replace in the big baptismal ledger?
7 Likes
So, I mean, this is presupposing this is true of course.
But from the God side of things, I imagine nobodys going to hell or heaven or whatever differently because of a grammatical disagreement/issue. God, from God’s wisdom, knows how this all shakes down and is pretty much aware of the final answer for everyone and will put people where they’re supposed to end up. God’s not bound by catholicism’s pedantry.
But the church itself? It’s got more than enough pedantry for itself and a whole pantheon of Gods.
My suspicion is, since the church are VERY good recordkeepers, they know exactly who is affected by this and likely even what major sacraments they’ve taken or officiated. At worst case, I suspect you’ll see the Pope issue a statement that all those who were in questionable baptisms need to be rebaptized legitimately, and that all sacraments past and future from all those affected would be recognized as if the new baptism occurred at the old time. Because God doesn’t really care about a concept of time here, the church won’t either.
Best case is the pope just goes, “Okay, I declare those baptisms okay and thus, all the surrounding sacraments are also okay, don’t do it again.”
putting aside for the moment about all the real controversies with abuse etc in the Catholic Church, theologically this is the thing about it that I just cant understand. Like from what I’ve read in the Bible it seems pretty clear to me that a lot of these rituals began as symbolic acts. Like the last supper Jesus seems pretty clearly to me to be saying to his pals, hey dudes, look we’ve had some good times. Don’t forget about me. When you drink this wine and eat this bread think about me. Or when he did the Lord’s Prayer he was like, look if you don’t know how to pray here’s a way you could do it. I don’t get the sense he was ever like “you have to say these literal words for this magic incantation to have effect” as if saying wingardium Leviosa with different inflection will spoil the whole thing. Ha.
I mean, I have serious doubts about spirituality in general, so I’m not the best one to get theological advice from… but yeah. Ha.
4 Likes
People need to be aware that Catholicism is both a religion and a literal nation-state.
Catholicism is not a nation-state. Vatican City is a quasi-nation-state. The total number of Vatican City citizens is just 450, and there’s only about 800 passports. The citizens are pretty much just cardinals and the pope, and various diplomats.
My father is catholic, my mother, protestant. […] Now imagine that my mom wasn’t really catholic? Well, that means that the marriage sacrament falls.
You’re mistaken. My parents were married in the Catholic church, but mom never converted. She attends, but doesn’t take communion. She took some classes, but that’s it. That doesn’t mean she converted. If you really want to know, I suggest you go talk to your local parish.
1 Like
Well, I didn’t expect an anti-Catholic post on BB.
1 Like
Both the wife and I were brought up Catholic including 12 years of Catholic schooling, we were married in the church and very pregnant when we got married. I was a hard core alcoholic at the time and we were both working a lot of hours so baptism wasn’t a priority.
Family members kept asking when the baptism was going to be because not getting into heaven and all. I did ask why God would punish a baby for the sins of the parents but they were never really able to answer.
We finally did get her baptized on her first birthday. She has also received all the sacraments except marriage, they opted for a minister at the brewery where they were married.
All of us no longer practice being Catholics mostly because of the way they raise money and stories like this post. We do occasionally go to church but mostly for special occasions and nostalgia. I hope God didn’t hear that.
I sat on the school board at our daughter’s Catholic grade school. One day we were invited to have lunch with the Bishop or Cardinal or one of the head guys to talk about fund raising. My wife kept kicking me under the table every time I started to ask wtf.
1 Like
‘The name of the Rose’ mentions a similar case where a Bavarian priest in the time of Charlemagne baptized “in nomine patris et filiae” (instead of of filii).
Here is Zacharius’ reply to Boniface…
We have heard from Virgilius and Sedonius, men of religious life in Bavaria, that you have ordered them to confer Baptism for a second time on certain Christians. This report has caused us some anxiety and, if the facts are true, has greatly surprised us. They told us that there was a certain priest in that province who knew no Latin at all, and who at the ceremony of Baptism, through ignorance of Latin grammar, made the mistake of saying:“Baptizo te in nomine patria. et filia et spiritus Sancti”, and for this reason you considered a second Baptism to be necessary. But, very reverend brother, if the minister intended no error or heresy, but simply through ignorance made a slip in Latin, we cannot agree to a repetition of the baptismal rite. For, as you are well aware, even a person who has been baptized by a heretic in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, does not need to be baptized over again, but is merely absolved by the laying on of hands. If, then, the case is really such as the report makes out, you must no longer do [issue instructions to this effect]. You must endeavour to conform to the teaching and preaching of the Fathers of the Church.
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/archive/index.php/thread-11634.html
This was not a big deal in the 8th century. It should not be a big deal now.
9 Likes
Meanwhile the orthodox church insists on using “we” in the baptism because it’s the priest guided by the invisible presence of Jesus who do the baptizing together.
You can’t make this shit up.
4 Likes
This is like that time a nearsighted priest accidentally baptized a waddle of penguins.
1 Like
It’s so absurd - I mean, even if “we” meant the community, it also explicitly included the priest, who does have that authority. So however one interprets it, it’s a… weird response by the church.
1 Like
I find it odd that they chose to address it at all.
Just the differences between different languages are gonna have bigger implications on meaning than this.
None the less dealing with it this particular way. It’s just a big self complication.
Yes. But even the Pope must cite his sources.
And that’s how they got in this mess to begin with.
There’s probably like 20 Cardinals in a room somewhere waving book reports at each other right now.
3 Likes
When my sister was being baptized, in the 1960’s, the Catholic priest objected to her name “Kelly-Ann”, on the grounds that he couldn’t “Latinize” it…Church Latin style.
