Vatican orders slight change in text for baptism
#21
(08-23-2013, 11:54 AM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(08-23-2013, 06:26 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 09:36 PM)OldMan Wrote: More hot air. So how long was this sacrament done incorrectly before anyone noticed? Forty plus years? What a joke!

To be fair, the form was never changed, so I'm not terribly concerned here.  But then again, WHY was it even changed to "Christian community" in the first place?  Was this yet another "ecumenical" change to the Rites of the Catholic Church?

But we shouldn't question these things!!!! 

The emporer's new clothes sure are spiffy . Who are we to say otherwise?

We "must be converted and become like children......
Reply
#22
"Church of God" is still ambiguous...
Reply
#23
(08-23-2013, 01:16 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 10:06 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 09:36 PM)OldMan Wrote: More hot air. So how long was this sacrament done incorrectly before anyone noticed? Forty plus years? What a joke!

About as long as changing "for all"  back to " for many".

That was an error of translation. In the Rite of Baptism the change was made to the original Latin.

And no one in the Vatican spoke English forty years ago? BS!
Reply
#24
(08-22-2013, 09:47 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 09:36 PM)OldMan Wrote: More hot air. So how long was this sacrament done incorrectly before anyone noticed? Forty plus years? What a joke!

??? ??? ???The last time I checked, the Sacrament was the pouring of water on the head of the baptisand and the recitation of the words 'I baptise thee in the Name of the Father...'. which has never been changed.

Guess I wasn't clear enough for the NO excuse makers...  In the meantime keep scratching your head and let the trashing of the accompanying ceremonies of the sacraments proceed as they are not really required for validity. Makes perfect sense to me. The more confusion the better!
Reply
#25
In my opinion, from my point of view (traditionalist, SSPX), the new rite of baptism is in error because it emphasizes entrance into the faith community vs. having the stain of original sin washed away and becoming a member of the Universal Church.

But I see this change as good. It implies people in Rome see there has been a problem with the new rite of baptism.
Reply
#26
(08-23-2013, 07:41 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 09:47 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 09:36 PM)OldMan Wrote: More hot air. So how long was this sacrament done incorrectly before anyone noticed? Forty plus years? What a joke!

??? ??? ???The last time I checked, the Sacrament was the pouring of water on the head of the baptisand and the recitation of the words 'I baptise thee in the Name of the Father...'. which has never been changed.

Guess I wasn't clear enough for the NO excuse makers...  In the meantime keep scratching your head and let the trashing of the accompanying ceremonies of the sacraments proceed as they are not really required for validity. Makes perfect sense to me. The more confusion the better!

I'm definitely not a NO excuse maker, but I do think baptism is an exception simply because the Church has always taught that *anyone* can baptize so long as we use the Trinitarian Formula (and water).  HOWEVER, I do see your point regarding the other changes.  I mean really, why was it ever changed to the "Christian community" in the first place?  And why after 40 years is the Church first noticing gee, maybe we shouldn't have done that?

With respect to the NO and the other sacraments, I do think that removing other parts of the rite (non-form and matter parts) leads to serious questions of intent.  This is what I struggle with right now (ie. the "why" of doing such a thing).  All I get as a response on this forum is .....well, most agreed that a change was necessary....just look at the overwhelming desire to change things!  But I still haven't heard WHY such a desire to change things and WHY such a desire to RADICALLY change things.  2 and 2 just doesn't equal 4 for me anymore.

Reply
#27
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/08...a-dei.html

Reply
#28
(08-23-2013, 06:23 AM)2Vermont Wrote: the Church is still teaching (post Vatican II) that the Church of Christ only "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

That is a lie. In no magesterial document will you find the word "only".
Reply
#29
(08-24-2013, 01:36 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-23-2013, 06:23 AM)2Vermont Wrote: the Church is still teaching (post Vatican II) that the Church of Christ only "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

That is a lie. In no magesterial document will you find the word "only".

Are you calling me a liar?

Where did I say that the documents say "only".  Seems to me that is my word and the word "subsists" in quotes.  The word subsists certainly implies however that the Church of Christ no longer "is" the Catholic Church.  "Subsists" vs "is"....two very different meanings, IMO.  So yeah, no longer is the Catholic Church; only subsists.
Reply
#30
(08-24-2013, 01:42 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-24-2013, 01:36 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-23-2013, 06:23 AM)2Vermont Wrote: the Church is still teaching (post Vatican II) that the Church of Christ only "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

That is a lie. In no magesterial document will you find the word "only".

Are you calling me a liar?

Where did I say that the documents say "only".  Seems to me that is my word and the word "subsists" in quotes.  The word subsists certainly implies however that the Church of Christ no longer "is" the Catholic Church.  "Subsists" vs "is"....two very different meanings, IMO.  So yeah, no longer is the Catholic Church; only subsists.

You said that the Church taught that the Churhc of Chirst  only subsists in the Catholic Church. That is false.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)