I can appreciate your frustration with this matter and things like it, but it doesn’t seem to me like you looked into it with too much depth. Your analysis of the effects of this declaration by P Francis make logical sense, but you seem to have abandoned reading church statements just after the declaration, which is why youve made some mistakes.
The church has always held that there is a baptism of desire, which is why catechumens who die before receiving baptism are not condemned to hell. If you are incorrectly baptized (which was almost never accidentally said in a large community as you shoehorn into your article, but by liberal priests who were invalidating their office as the instrument through whom Christ works sacraments), and you do not know you are, then you can assume God’s love and mercy. A priest would need to be re-ordained, yes, but any confessions he heard are not automatically null, which the church has been very clear about. Marriage is another one you mentioned, which shows you understand almost nothing about the Catholic understanding of it, I guess. The priest does not administer the sacrament, but the couple does. The priest is the universal witness, so his lack of correct ordination does not affect the validity of the marriage, nor would it affect baptisms because anyone is technically allowed to baptize someone if it is under the correct form (way it’s said) and intention.
There is a huge difference between the validity of the sacrament and the mercy and Grace of God, and you seem to make the unjustifiable assumption that the Catholic Church focuses on one at the exclusion of the other. I don’t know what happened to you, or which aggrieved priest you were listening to, but that is far from the reality of the Catholic Church, as made obvious if you took the time to dig even a modicum deeper into the subject you’re writing an entire article about.
I would posit the same for you. If there is a legitimate form, and sacraments are done out of form, then they are invalid. That is a necessity for literally any religion which isn’t just pure mysticism.
That doesn’t necessitate that you are outside of God’s mercy and Grace, which is the implication you are putting on the statements of the church. You accuse the church of not believing in love, while ignoring any argument to the contrary, which means you don’t actually care about the thesis of your article, that God loves us unconditionally, but that the Catholic Church is bad because they have standards. Accuse me all youd like of conjuring up some false impression. The only one here cherry picking statements from the church is you.
But doesnt this still become the DnD manual he was describing? The fact that there are countless conditions corrected by other conditions, such that in order to be *wholistically Catholic*, one should sorta take the whole thing with a very loose grip?
The fact that it would take something similar to a canon lawyer to tell you that something that Pope said doesn't invalidate your state of Grace because there's a secret baptism of the heart, which makes the statement by the Pope somewhat arbitrary and pointless anyway...
If I were Catholic this is how I'd do it: Id never listen to any hierarchical statements, or not even take them that seriously.
I'd sorta just vibe it. And this would be the recommendation of a good priest.
I would just come to mass, receive communion, go to confession, try to live more and more like Jesus, and continue calling myself a Catholic.
And then when the clerics tell me something like "your baptism didn't matter" I'd go like 'oh well', and then probably not get rebaptized because nothing the clerics do is very serious and is all a kind of divine theater.
Then literally every actual religion is going to operate like a DnD manual. If that’s your problem, then so be it.
The issue with your statement is that if you’re listening to some of the declarations which come out, you kind of have to listen to all of them. You certainly don’t have to, and vibing it is almost always the best way to go until you’re told explicitly to change course.
Thats going to be the case with literally any religion that has developed doctrine.
Yes, you don’t need to read everything that comes out, but for a religion to actually be a religion and not just mysticism, you need a body that makes prescriptive judgements. The pope was right. Using an incorrect form and words invalidates the entire meaning of baptism and of the priesthood. To say “we baptize you” is a misunderstanding of how the church itself works at best, subversive at worst. If you were baptized incorrectly and don’t know, you’re probably fine, but if you’re going to read the declarations, follow through on reading them instead of reading a few sentences and walking away angry.
It hardly takes a canon lawyer to understand these things. It just takes someone willing to look into it a tad bit further.
"If you were baptized incorrectly and don't know, you're probably fine..."
Schrodinger's Baptism. Basically, "It's valid so long as you don't look at it."
"You were a priest until you looked and discovered you'd been invalidly baptized, and then it turned out that you never were a priest, actually, even when we thought you were. Also, the sacraments you administered were invalid but, if the congregants aren't aware of that, then it's probably valid for them until they learn it isn't."
Also, the sacraments you administered were invalid but, if the congregants aren't aware of that, then it's probably valid for them until they learn it isn't.
This is so similar to the principle of mens rea in literal law. I find this to be deeply fascinating.
I can’t tell you how much cognitive dissonance I had about this exact issue, which in truth, ALL of Christianity is built on cognitive dissonance. It’s weaponized mental fear which translates to physiological behavior and sickness.
It’s not absurd at all. It is common sense. One must do one’s best to obey God’s will. If one has earnestly sought baptism, he’s done what’s expected of him. God is not looking for loopholes to send people to hell. This is the whole bit in the Catechism (among other places) where the Church teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” In one sentence, the Church has debunked your entire essay. Honestly, what the hell is going on here?
I did, but found it unpersuasive. The Pope is not a wizard who uses his binding and loosing powers to subvert God's revealed will. "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
Christ instituted a sacramental economy using sensible signs; the Church is responsible for safeguarding the mysteries by developing rites with matter and form appropriate to the particular sacrament. "We baptize thee" is an inappropriate and false formula that fails to signify the invisible reality of Baptism.
The Church determines the validity of the sacraments though based upon approved matter and form. If the form is screwed up or the matter inappropriate, it is perfectly legitimate to have your conscience disturbed and seek a conditional baptism. Might the prior one been efficacious? Maybe...but wouldn't you much rather have the moral certitude that the approved formula be reapplied conditionally instead of just going around wondering "what if"? The Church was given to us by Christ help legislate these things so that widespread shenanigans wouldn't ensue. Alas they have and now people are having these conversations.
If a non-valid priest “absolves” someone of sin in confession then there would be no absolution of sin and thus no reconciliation. This is just Church teaching. If the answer to that “yeah but don’t worry about it” then fine but then why confess to a priest? The priest you would have confessed to wouldn’t have had the authority to absolve. How much authority needs to be undermined while still maintaining the hierarchy and rules? Its a tricky problem
From a legalistic perspective, yes that makes total sense. But the priest isn’t just given some magical powers by his ordination. God wants us to use the forms provided by Christ through the hierarchy of the church, and in a case such as the one mentioned, the church has said that if you feel you need to go back to confession out of an abundance of caution, that is always a good thing to do, but that sufficient grace is provided to the church itself that will make up for a mistake such as that.
I would think that if a priest knows he is not validly a priest, then there would be a different discussion.
He doesn’t gain magic powers but he does have a degree of authority that I don’t, at least under normal circumstances. I think the hierarchy was instituted to give us some assurance as a mercy from God. But you can see why it would be problem if the priest and penitent both believed the priest was actually a priest then found out later that he wasn’t ackshually. The problem isn’t with the people, they’re both fine, but with the authority.
Yes, I would agree with the source of the problem. But the actual authority in question is ultimately the church. Just as priests can sin, and the people who make up the church are fundamentally flawed by human nature, but the church itself is considered immaculate.
"it confirms every criticism any Evangelical ever leveled at the Catholic faith." - indeed it does. The legalistic nature of the catholic church's rules led me to quip once "it's Judaism, but for Christians.". And my other favorite, "they took a good religion and added a human government to it, and ruined it".
>Perhaps it is my Baptist upbringing talking but honestly the more you learn about Catholicism the more it reads like a DnD manual, all the various rites, rituals, and artifacts conferring various stat buffs and giving you defensive rolls. “He died before confession, yes, BUT! he perished while wearing the brown scapular! That’s a get out of Hell free card when used in conjunction with a plenary indulgence gained by walking through a Cathedral door on a Tuesday. Do a skill check. How much mana did he have?”
In Chinese folk religion, 33% of the population is currently under astrological constraints known as Tai Sui as of 2/4. In order to partially release yourself from such a constraint you must pray against the deity who rules over that particular Jupiter sign. This is done by repeating your name in full and birth date, place of residence, etc... before the shrine. You can't be on your menstural cycle or in an otherwise state of impurity whilst doing so.
My uncle is not exactly a Buddhist, but he did pay Buddhist clergy thousands of dollars to shorten his hell sentence and erase the impact of specific sins. This is called merit making and it works in a similar way to indulgences in Catholicism. It also happens in Taoism. A lot of people don't believe anything but they do carry trading cards of the Chinese gods and specific prayers. Some prayers protect you against attack by wild animals. Buried on your property they can prevent natural disasters.
I have zero problem with the get out of Hell free card situation and every problem with absolutist monotheism within Christianity / Catholicism. My objections are different from others' objections.
Incidentally, that was Martin Luther’s earliest beef, that men weren’t really studying the primary source, the Bible, but were wrapped up in commentaries, treatises, etc. Not that those necessarily were bad things, but they weren’t authoritative the same way. So reading the primary source caused all the trouble. I will note as a trend that Sola Fide people work hard at answering problem passages, while their opponents tend to gloss over problem passages going the other way.
I'm finding that the trick to being in these hyper-autist high Liturgical traditions is taking them seriously when it's valuable as a binding agent to the Divine and laughing in their face when it's not.
If you can find the one that won't burn your tongue out of your mouth for chuckling, or send you to a Siberian labor camp, that one's a keeper.
Since they have all done this at various points in history, this decision is often contingent on what is going on at the time of your sojourn to Earth.
The lovely thing about litigiousness is that there are always loopholes. Origen was condemned as a Universalist, but St. Maximos tweaks it a bit, re-declares it, and nobody cries foul.
I know a guy with six annulments. Six. Sanctity of marriage? Gimme a break. Laws aren't about what's codified, they're about what's meaningfully enforced.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Christian hutzpah abounds, the Church nevertheless legislates on matters of dogmatic importance. That is the usefulness of competent authorities giving the "charitable anathema" to circumscribe what is and is not licit. If even then you attempt to find the loopholes, then yes you would be guilty of using legalism to justify your own means. It wouldn't be the law's fault but you interpreting it in your own perverse way.
We must remember too that the spirit of Antichrist is that of lawlessness.
> competent authorities giving the "charitable anathema"
That's fine if they want to do so. As I have never been anathematized, charitably or otherwise, I'm comfortable in my current understanding and status.
My appeal is quite obviously not to anarchy, your cautionary warning notwithstanding.
Let us never forget that several great Saints died as condemned heretics or under some other form of ecclesial rebuke. This is a very fine line that one should not tug on too hard.
A simple solution even in this system would be "going forward say 'I' instead of 'We', everyone before now is grandfathered in". Even as stupid as government is they know to say that much when they change wording and laws.
A good suggestion, though not sufficient. There is a principle of “Ecclesia supplet” or “the Church supplies”. The idea being that when some faculty is lacking for a particular action, but the parties act in good faith, the Church supplies what is lacking to make things good.
This applies to those things which the Church itself provides (such as faculties; this is why the marriages done by the invalidly ordained priest can be fixed right away), but cannot apply to the requirements intrinsic to the thing, which for baptism is the washing with water and the words themselves.
It was egregious for the deacon to presume to change the formula of baptism and the Church is being responsible in validly baptizing those whom he failed to baptize.
🤣 There’s probably room for variations in the percentages. What I stand by is that anyone who insists on 100% of the rules is not having fun, and if you follow 0% of the rules you aren’t even playing a game.
It never does any harm to point out the obvious. I think “it’s the rules” is the oldest trick in the deceiver’s pocket, and Jesus never got tired of pointing it out to the scribes & Pharisees.
I see the older brother here, hard at work. Funny how we love him so.
Right at the end you come close to a conclusion, but then you stop. I understand the hesitation. Believe me, I understand (5 year residential postgrad conservative theology course anyone?), but nonetheless.
The argument that eternal salvation or eternal damnation are contingent upon sustaining a mental model of a creed (Protestants), or the fulfillment of certain rituals (Catholics), is so absurd that if heaven were truly the reward for that, it would be an embarrassment and an insult to both men and God.
So pathetically absurd are these positions, and so pernicious their effects on society, that I now question even heaven and hell, since the doctrine of salvation and damnation comes from the same source that threw up such a steaming pile of nonsense.
My 100% serious recommendation is that you study other faiths/traditions, see what problems they’ve rub into historically, and how they’re resolved.
Take a step back, get some perspective, etc. etc.
Borrowing language from the Jewish tradition, the role of canon law, ritual correctness, etc. is to serve as a “hedge around the Torah”. The point of making sure X thing is being done Y way every single time is not that “God doesn’t offer His grace if the priest says ‘we’ instead of ‘I’”. It’s that the Church wants both the meaning and form of baptism to be reliably transmitted today, tomorrow, and in a thousand years.
This bit of legalism is designed to get people to give up and deprive themselves of Church community. It is to finish up what COVID policy did to empty the Churches. You can see how well people do without this community.
Read your Bible, get into a Church, and try to do what the Creator wants. Keep working at it, and the Creator will finish the job for you.
Who would ever cite NBC regarding religion of any kind? “Could it beeeeeee SATAN?!!” 🤣🤣
Reading the EWTN article in its entirety gives a sane balance about the Catholic teachings, by the way.
In the end, Martin Luther’s challenge to the Church remains undefeated. “If,” said the German, “the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and to forgive sins, why not wake up every morning and forgive all the sins of the whole world, simply out of his mercy? A blanket pardon for all the Earth.”
No it doesn't. Forgiveness of sins isn't given unconditionally--it relies upon the disposition of the individual who is seeking absolution. You need at least imperfect contrition to be disposed to the sacrament-mercy cannot be given to those not seeking it, and for the right means. Furthermore, penance is prescribed in the penitent's requisit satisfaction, both a set action to be performed (your 3 Paters and Aves) and a resolute will to amend ones life and perform penance as a means of participating in Christ's passion as well as making reparation for it. This is corroborated by our Lord who always forgave but also commanded repentance, called sinners ill, referring to himself as a healing physician, and asked those he forgave to "go and sin no longer".
Martin Luther's criticisms here are empty and just another showing of his personal scruples which couldn't stop obsessing about his personal sins and instead needed to focus more on God and his mercy and goodness as well as toward his neighbor whom he was commanded to love by action and prayer.
No? Pharisees were inherently scrupulous, adding extra burdens where they did not need to be and emphasizing their ridiculous human traditions. I will cede you that many traditionally oriented people become scrupulous and focus on jot and tittles when they lack all form of charity. That being said, moral theologians make distinctions between being scrupulous and being “careful”. The same should be applied to sacramental formulas because the Church has given us these rituals to perform in a fitting manner, and not for the minister to have the hubris to monkey with how the formula ought to be said. That creates an action of impiety and self glory and not one of humble submission to doing what the Church has provided. Commenting again on Luther…the man was obviously scrupulous and was told so by his superiors time and again. Scrupulosity is a form of spiritual narcissism in which the one suffering can only focus on themselves and not on the grace and mercy of God. Many comment that maintaining scruples even after receiving Penance/reconciliation is an insult to God’s mercy since you still presume to be guilty when the Just Judge (through His minister) has given pardon. St. Therese gives the adequate prescription when she writes that the scrupulous ought to throw themselves into the service and love of others and stop fixating on themselves. Instead, Luther created a new doctrine and interpretation of scripture that was devastating for Christendom and released him from the consequences of yielding to his labido.
Oy vey, the chief problem for the Pharisees is that the fully *believed* they were being "careful", which is why Jesus has to use such invective language with them in the first place!
The issue as I see is that the structure in question seems to invite this same scrupulosity, and you need some sort of divine gnosis (or a guide who has somehow attained it) in order to cope with it correctly -- that is, you need to know situationally how to weight certain teachings against others.
This is *literally* what the Pharisees did, it was their whole practice of interpreting Jewish law so that people outside of Jerusalem or far from the temple could partake in the righteousness of God. They arbitrated disputes, rendered verdicts, debated application, precisely because the corpus of Hebrew religion had grown so comprehensive that it required interpretation and make it remotely livable.
I posit this is precisely the position of the average Catholic apologist. And I grant a good faith effort it.
But even assuming their good faith, Christ still spoke against them for shutting the kingdom of heaven in people's faces.
The Church stands in the way of the Gospel in ways it will refuse to see because of some ontological commitments. This is precisely the same position that the faithful leaders of Israel were in when Christ came.
You've tied up the function of the gospel into a particular form and expression of the Church.
I've never seen this argument properly grappled with.
Which is probably why Christ also exhorted the people to acknowledge that the Pharisees were in the seats of lawful authority and commanded his followers to obey them in doctrine but not to follow their examples of scandal and hubris. Nevertheless the New Lawgiver still gives Peter the ability to bind and loose and share this power with the episcopal college and furthermore to govern a Church here on Earth. That same Church has furthermore provided clarity and interpretation, circumscribing the limits of our understanding things and being divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost (if you believe that as a Dogmatic fact at least). I think we should draw comfort from that, not challenge it or become scrupulous in our own moral insecurities. It does expose, however, the current crisis in Christianity which is rooted in a tainted hierarchy which has caused moral incertitude worldwide. Perhaps it will take Christ returning to sort all of this out at this point.
I appreciate the response. I think this is why I go to bat for Protestantism, because on a fundamental level it's *not* an open and shut case.
What Christ says there is pretty thorny, because the scandal and the doctrine are tied up in each other. The scandalous doctrine is the thing to watch out for.
Christ already places us in a position of needing to deploy spiritual discernment. He clearly is on the side of authorities insofar as they give forth the Law of God, but against them insofar as they don't. And the metric by which we are meant to measure is Christ himself, and him wholistically.
Therefore "many will say Lord, Lord." Right? But also "if they are not against us, they are for us". And "they will stone you and believe they are being faithful to God".
And you're right. All of this is because the chair of Peter got wacky. The assumption that if comes from Peter's chair, it's legitimate and binding is... I'm not saying I'm even against it I principal, it's just obviously problematic. And to insist that people bend themselves to an authority because of the authority itself -- aside from God himself -- is idolatrous. Which of course why there's people who say that Catholics don't have the gospel.
Now I don't believe that statement exactly, but I think I see what's it's aiming at:
A bad cop is a cop, but he's bad. A bad law is a law but it's unlawful. A bad doctor has an MD but you shouldn't trust him.
Not *because* of the name on the tin. Doctors advice doesn't inherently mean good advice. You have to test it.
Add psychologizing to the list of non-rebuttals you provided.
Not fear. I'm frustrated that a so-called Catholic constantly countersignals his Church with no understanding of its actual theology. I'm frustrated with your antinomianism the way I'm frustrated with my toddler's antinomianism.
There’s no argument you’d accept because you’re starting from the assumption that the church is infallible and so can’t be wrong. There’s no evidence or argument that would convince you.
Crypto-presuppositonalism is, again, not a rebuttal. Notice I'm not appealing once to Church authority.
Here, I'll help you rebut me. If you can prove to me that the form of the sacrament is irrelevant, I'll concede the argument.
Can we baptize with sand? How about kool-aid? Maybe vodka? One liquid surely shouldn't make a difference. Can we anoint the sick with motor oil? Maybe we can use pizza for hosts. It has bread!
For a guy who runs a "worldview repair service" you sure do need to fix your antinomian worldview
"I don't need to get baptized because I have a secret baptism of the heart" is the sin of presumption. If you love God, you keep His commandments. This means giving enough of a shit about the Sacraments to make sure they're done right. This isn't to say God is bound BY them. God bound Himself TO them for OUR sake. So we should do it correctly.
Antinomianism is more of an issue these days than Pharisaeism, to the point I don't even entertain the cries of "Pharisee! Pharisee!", especially from antinomian evangelicals and their friends like Yoshi.
I can appreciate your frustration with this matter and things like it, but it doesn’t seem to me like you looked into it with too much depth. Your analysis of the effects of this declaration by P Francis make logical sense, but you seem to have abandoned reading church statements just after the declaration, which is why youve made some mistakes.
The church has always held that there is a baptism of desire, which is why catechumens who die before receiving baptism are not condemned to hell. If you are incorrectly baptized (which was almost never accidentally said in a large community as you shoehorn into your article, but by liberal priests who were invalidating their office as the instrument through whom Christ works sacraments), and you do not know you are, then you can assume God’s love and mercy. A priest would need to be re-ordained, yes, but any confessions he heard are not automatically null, which the church has been very clear about. Marriage is another one you mentioned, which shows you understand almost nothing about the Catholic understanding of it, I guess. The priest does not administer the sacrament, but the couple does. The priest is the universal witness, so his lack of correct ordination does not affect the validity of the marriage, nor would it affect baptisms because anyone is technically allowed to baptize someone if it is under the correct form (way it’s said) and intention.
There is a huge difference between the validity of the sacrament and the mercy and Grace of God, and you seem to make the unjustifiable assumption that the Catholic Church focuses on one at the exclusion of the other. I don’t know what happened to you, or which aggrieved priest you were listening to, but that is far from the reality of the Catholic Church, as made obvious if you took the time to dig even a modicum deeper into the subject you’re writing an entire article about.
"If you are incorrectly baptized and you do not know you are then you can assume..."
Schrodinger's Baptism. Basically, "It's valid so long as you don't look at it."
Also, as cited in the sources, no, sometimes marriages were called into question over these things.
There's the Catholicism that exists in your head and the one that exists in the real world and those are simply not the same.
There is Catholicism that exists in Yoshi's head and the Catholicism that exists in the real world. And they are not the same.
I would posit the same for you. If there is a legitimate form, and sacraments are done out of form, then they are invalid. That is a necessity for literally any religion which isn’t just pure mysticism.
That doesn’t necessitate that you are outside of God’s mercy and Grace, which is the implication you are putting on the statements of the church. You accuse the church of not believing in love, while ignoring any argument to the contrary, which means you don’t actually care about the thesis of your article, that God loves us unconditionally, but that the Catholic Church is bad because they have standards. Accuse me all youd like of conjuring up some false impression. The only one here cherry picking statements from the church is you.
But doesnt this still become the DnD manual he was describing? The fact that there are countless conditions corrected by other conditions, such that in order to be *wholistically Catholic*, one should sorta take the whole thing with a very loose grip?
The fact that it would take something similar to a canon lawyer to tell you that something that Pope said doesn't invalidate your state of Grace because there's a secret baptism of the heart, which makes the statement by the Pope somewhat arbitrary and pointless anyway...
If I were Catholic this is how I'd do it: Id never listen to any hierarchical statements, or not even take them that seriously.
I'd sorta just vibe it. And this would be the recommendation of a good priest.
I would just come to mass, receive communion, go to confession, try to live more and more like Jesus, and continue calling myself a Catholic.
And then when the clerics tell me something like "your baptism didn't matter" I'd go like 'oh well', and then probably not get rebaptized because nothing the clerics do is very serious and is all a kind of divine theater.
Then literally every actual religion is going to operate like a DnD manual. If that’s your problem, then so be it.
The issue with your statement is that if you’re listening to some of the declarations which come out, you kind of have to listen to all of them. You certainly don’t have to, and vibing it is almost always the best way to go until you’re told explicitly to change course.
Thats going to be the case with literally any religion that has developed doctrine.
Yes, you don’t need to read everything that comes out, but for a religion to actually be a religion and not just mysticism, you need a body that makes prescriptive judgements. The pope was right. Using an incorrect form and words invalidates the entire meaning of baptism and of the priesthood. To say “we baptize you” is a misunderstanding of how the church itself works at best, subversive at worst. If you were baptized incorrectly and don’t know, you’re probably fine, but if you’re going to read the declarations, follow through on reading them instead of reading a few sentences and walking away angry.
It hardly takes a canon lawyer to understand these things. It just takes someone willing to look into it a tad bit further.
"If you were baptized incorrectly and don't know, you're probably fine..."
Schrodinger's Baptism. Basically, "It's valid so long as you don't look at it."
"You were a priest until you looked and discovered you'd been invalidly baptized, and then it turned out that you never were a priest, actually, even when we thought you were. Also, the sacraments you administered were invalid but, if the congregants aren't aware of that, then it's probably valid for them until they learn it isn't."
Absurd.
All of Apostolic Christendom seems bent on replaying some variant of the Donatist/Cyprian vs. Stephen controversy of late.
It’s like watching Scripps National Spelling Bee with grown men in vestments.
I’m here for it.
Meanwhile my Presbyterians are rebaptizing Catholics because "they don't have the Gospel"
The embarrassment is nauseating
I’m Presbyterian, and our denomination does not rebaptize Catholics.
Well yeah, the Satanic Jesuits hid it in the Ark of the Covenant.
Just resist it and cite Charles Hodge. It will be recognized as embarrassing in 10 years or less
Also, the sacraments you administered were invalid but, if the congregants aren't aware of that, then it's probably valid for them until they learn it isn't.
This is so similar to the principle of mens rea in literal law. I find this to be deeply fascinating.
I can’t tell you how much cognitive dissonance I had about this exact issue, which in truth, ALL of Christianity is built on cognitive dissonance. It’s weaponized mental fear which translates to physiological behavior and sickness.
It’s not absurd at all. It is common sense. One must do one’s best to obey God’s will. If one has earnestly sought baptism, he’s done what’s expected of him. God is not looking for loopholes to send people to hell. This is the whole bit in the Catechism (among other places) where the Church teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” In one sentence, the Church has debunked your entire essay. Honestly, what the hell is going on here?
You should have read the article to the bit about Luther before writing this comment
I did, but found it unpersuasive. The Pope is not a wizard who uses his binding and loosing powers to subvert God's revealed will. "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
Christ instituted a sacramental economy using sensible signs; the Church is responsible for safeguarding the mysteries by developing rites with matter and form appropriate to the particular sacrament. "We baptize thee" is an inappropriate and false formula that fails to signify the invisible reality of Baptism.
The Church determines the validity of the sacraments though based upon approved matter and form. If the form is screwed up or the matter inappropriate, it is perfectly legitimate to have your conscience disturbed and seek a conditional baptism. Might the prior one been efficacious? Maybe...but wouldn't you much rather have the moral certitude that the approved formula be reapplied conditionally instead of just going around wondering "what if"? The Church was given to us by Christ help legislate these things so that widespread shenanigans wouldn't ensue. Alas they have and now people are having these conversations.
If a non-valid priest “absolves” someone of sin in confession then there would be no absolution of sin and thus no reconciliation. This is just Church teaching. If the answer to that “yeah but don’t worry about it” then fine but then why confess to a priest? The priest you would have confessed to wouldn’t have had the authority to absolve. How much authority needs to be undermined while still maintaining the hierarchy and rules? Its a tricky problem
From a legalistic perspective, yes that makes total sense. But the priest isn’t just given some magical powers by his ordination. God wants us to use the forms provided by Christ through the hierarchy of the church, and in a case such as the one mentioned, the church has said that if you feel you need to go back to confession out of an abundance of caution, that is always a good thing to do, but that sufficient grace is provided to the church itself that will make up for a mistake such as that.
I would think that if a priest knows he is not validly a priest, then there would be a different discussion.
He doesn’t gain magic powers but he does have a degree of authority that I don’t, at least under normal circumstances. I think the hierarchy was instituted to give us some assurance as a mercy from God. But you can see why it would be problem if the priest and penitent both believed the priest was actually a priest then found out later that he wasn’t ackshually. The problem isn’t with the people, they’re both fine, but with the authority.
Yes, I would agree with the source of the problem. But the actual authority in question is ultimately the church. Just as priests can sin, and the people who make up the church are fundamentally flawed by human nature, but the church itself is considered immaculate.
"it confirms every criticism any Evangelical ever leveled at the Catholic faith." - indeed it does. The legalistic nature of the catholic church's rules led me to quip once "it's Judaism, but for Christians.". And my other favorite, "they took a good religion and added a human government to it, and ruined it".
>Perhaps it is my Baptist upbringing talking but honestly the more you learn about Catholicism the more it reads like a DnD manual, all the various rites, rituals, and artifacts conferring various stat buffs and giving you defensive rolls. “He died before confession, yes, BUT! he perished while wearing the brown scapular! That’s a get out of Hell free card when used in conjunction with a plenary indulgence gained by walking through a Cathedral door on a Tuesday. Do a skill check. How much mana did he have?”
In Chinese folk religion, 33% of the population is currently under astrological constraints known as Tai Sui as of 2/4. In order to partially release yourself from such a constraint you must pray against the deity who rules over that particular Jupiter sign. This is done by repeating your name in full and birth date, place of residence, etc... before the shrine. You can't be on your menstural cycle or in an otherwise state of impurity whilst doing so.
My uncle is not exactly a Buddhist, but he did pay Buddhist clergy thousands of dollars to shorten his hell sentence and erase the impact of specific sins. This is called merit making and it works in a similar way to indulgences in Catholicism. It also happens in Taoism. A lot of people don't believe anything but they do carry trading cards of the Chinese gods and specific prayers. Some prayers protect you against attack by wild animals. Buried on your property they can prevent natural disasters.
I have zero problem with the get out of Hell free card situation and every problem with absolutist monotheism within Christianity / Catholicism. My objections are different from others' objections.
Incidentally, that was Martin Luther’s earliest beef, that men weren’t really studying the primary source, the Bible, but were wrapped up in commentaries, treatises, etc. Not that those necessarily were bad things, but they weren’t authoritative the same way. So reading the primary source caused all the trouble. I will note as a trend that Sola Fide people work hard at answering problem passages, while their opponents tend to gloss over problem passages going the other way.
I'm finding that the trick to being in these hyper-autist high Liturgical traditions is taking them seriously when it's valuable as a binding agent to the Divine and laughing in their face when it's not.
If you can find the one that won't burn your tongue out of your mouth for chuckling, or send you to a Siberian labor camp, that one's a keeper.
Since they have all done this at various points in history, this decision is often contingent on what is going on at the time of your sojourn to Earth.
So true
That’s condemned as Quietism though as well. It’s remarkably thorough.
The lovely thing about litigiousness is that there are always loopholes. Origen was condemned as a Universalist, but St. Maximos tweaks it a bit, re-declares it, and nobody cries foul.
I know a guy with six annulments. Six. Sanctity of marriage? Gimme a break. Laws aren't about what's codified, they're about what's meaningfully enforced.
Not saying that's good or bad, it is what it is.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Christian hutzpah abounds, the Church nevertheless legislates on matters of dogmatic importance. That is the usefulness of competent authorities giving the "charitable anathema" to circumscribe what is and is not licit. If even then you attempt to find the loopholes, then yes you would be guilty of using legalism to justify your own means. It wouldn't be the law's fault but you interpreting it in your own perverse way.
We must remember too that the spirit of Antichrist is that of lawlessness.
> competent authorities giving the "charitable anathema"
That's fine if they want to do so. As I have never been anathematized, charitably or otherwise, I'm comfortable in my current understanding and status.
My appeal is quite obviously not to anarchy, your cautionary warning notwithstanding.
Let us never forget that several great Saints died as condemned heretics or under some other form of ecclesial rebuke. This is a very fine line that one should not tug on too hard.
A simple solution even in this system would be "going forward say 'I' instead of 'We', everyone before now is grandfathered in". Even as stupid as government is they know to say that much when they change wording and laws.
A good suggestion, though not sufficient. There is a principle of “Ecclesia supplet” or “the Church supplies”. The idea being that when some faculty is lacking for a particular action, but the parties act in good faith, the Church supplies what is lacking to make things good.
This applies to those things which the Church itself provides (such as faculties; this is why the marriages done by the invalidly ordained priest can be fixed right away), but cannot apply to the requirements intrinsic to the thing, which for baptism is the washing with water and the words themselves.
It was egregious for the deacon to presume to change the formula of baptism and the Church is being responsible in validly baptizing those whom he failed to baptize.
My husband and I also use the DnD manual analogy for Catholicism. It’s so apt.
Actual DnD is only fun and playable if you ignore 80% of the rules.
You clearly don't have as much autism as I dothe game is unplayable unless you follow 80% and ignore 20
🤣 There’s probably room for variations in the percentages. What I stand by is that anyone who insists on 100% of the rules is not having fun, and if you follow 0% of the rules you aren’t even playing a game.
It never does any harm to point out the obvious. I think “it’s the rules” is the oldest trick in the deceiver’s pocket, and Jesus never got tired of pointing it out to the scribes & Pharisees.
I see the older brother here, hard at work. Funny how we love him so.
I'm afraid it goes even deeper than this, Yoshi.
Right at the end you come close to a conclusion, but then you stop. I understand the hesitation. Believe me, I understand (5 year residential postgrad conservative theology course anyone?), but nonetheless.
The argument that eternal salvation or eternal damnation are contingent upon sustaining a mental model of a creed (Protestants), or the fulfillment of certain rituals (Catholics), is so absurd that if heaven were truly the reward for that, it would be an embarrassment and an insult to both men and God.
So pathetically absurd are these positions, and so pernicious their effects on society, that I now question even heaven and hell, since the doctrine of salvation and damnation comes from the same source that threw up such a steaming pile of nonsense.
My 100% serious recommendation is that you study other faiths/traditions, see what problems they’ve rub into historically, and how they’re resolved.
Take a step back, get some perspective, etc. etc.
Borrowing language from the Jewish tradition, the role of canon law, ritual correctness, etc. is to serve as a “hedge around the Torah”. The point of making sure X thing is being done Y way every single time is not that “God doesn’t offer His grace if the priest says ‘we’ instead of ‘I’”. It’s that the Church wants both the meaning and form of baptism to be reliably transmitted today, tomorrow, and in a thousand years.
This bit of legalism is designed to get people to give up and deprive themselves of Church community. It is to finish up what COVID policy did to empty the Churches. You can see how well people do without this community.
Read your Bible, get into a Church, and try to do what the Creator wants. Keep working at it, and the Creator will finish the job for you.
Who would ever cite NBC regarding religion of any kind? “Could it beeeeeee SATAN?!!” 🤣🤣
Reading the EWTN article in its entirety gives a sane balance about the Catholic teachings, by the way.
Great post. Doesn't your Satan the lawyer article have something to say about this sad state of affairs?
Perhaps! I can’t remember off hand
In the end, Martin Luther’s challenge to the Church remains undefeated. “If,” said the German, “the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and to forgive sins, why not wake up every morning and forgive all the sins of the whole world, simply out of his mercy? A blanket pardon for all the Earth.”
No it doesn't. Forgiveness of sins isn't given unconditionally--it relies upon the disposition of the individual who is seeking absolution. You need at least imperfect contrition to be disposed to the sacrament-mercy cannot be given to those not seeking it, and for the right means. Furthermore, penance is prescribed in the penitent's requisit satisfaction, both a set action to be performed (your 3 Paters and Aves) and a resolute will to amend ones life and perform penance as a means of participating in Christ's passion as well as making reparation for it. This is corroborated by our Lord who always forgave but also commanded repentance, called sinners ill, referring to himself as a healing physician, and asked those he forgave to "go and sin no longer".
Martin Luther's criticisms here are empty and just another showing of his personal scruples which couldn't stop obsessing about his personal sins and instead needed to focus more on God and his mercy and goodness as well as toward his neighbor whom he was commanded to love by action and prayer.
Do you ever read your own argumentation and say "maybe this is functionally Pharisaic?"
No? Pharisees were inherently scrupulous, adding extra burdens where they did not need to be and emphasizing their ridiculous human traditions. I will cede you that many traditionally oriented people become scrupulous and focus on jot and tittles when they lack all form of charity. That being said, moral theologians make distinctions between being scrupulous and being “careful”. The same should be applied to sacramental formulas because the Church has given us these rituals to perform in a fitting manner, and not for the minister to have the hubris to monkey with how the formula ought to be said. That creates an action of impiety and self glory and not one of humble submission to doing what the Church has provided. Commenting again on Luther…the man was obviously scrupulous and was told so by his superiors time and again. Scrupulosity is a form of spiritual narcissism in which the one suffering can only focus on themselves and not on the grace and mercy of God. Many comment that maintaining scruples even after receiving Penance/reconciliation is an insult to God’s mercy since you still presume to be guilty when the Just Judge (through His minister) has given pardon. St. Therese gives the adequate prescription when she writes that the scrupulous ought to throw themselves into the service and love of others and stop fixating on themselves. Instead, Luther created a new doctrine and interpretation of scripture that was devastating for Christendom and released him from the consequences of yielding to his labido.
Oy vey, the chief problem for the Pharisees is that the fully *believed* they were being "careful", which is why Jesus has to use such invective language with them in the first place!
The issue as I see is that the structure in question seems to invite this same scrupulosity, and you need some sort of divine gnosis (or a guide who has somehow attained it) in order to cope with it correctly -- that is, you need to know situationally how to weight certain teachings against others.
This is *literally* what the Pharisees did, it was their whole practice of interpreting Jewish law so that people outside of Jerusalem or far from the temple could partake in the righteousness of God. They arbitrated disputes, rendered verdicts, debated application, precisely because the corpus of Hebrew religion had grown so comprehensive that it required interpretation and make it remotely livable.
I posit this is precisely the position of the average Catholic apologist. And I grant a good faith effort it.
But even assuming their good faith, Christ still spoke against them for shutting the kingdom of heaven in people's faces.
The Church stands in the way of the Gospel in ways it will refuse to see because of some ontological commitments. This is precisely the same position that the faithful leaders of Israel were in when Christ came.
You've tied up the function of the gospel into a particular form and expression of the Church.
I've never seen this argument properly grappled with.
Which is probably why Christ also exhorted the people to acknowledge that the Pharisees were in the seats of lawful authority and commanded his followers to obey them in doctrine but not to follow their examples of scandal and hubris. Nevertheless the New Lawgiver still gives Peter the ability to bind and loose and share this power with the episcopal college and furthermore to govern a Church here on Earth. That same Church has furthermore provided clarity and interpretation, circumscribing the limits of our understanding things and being divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost (if you believe that as a Dogmatic fact at least). I think we should draw comfort from that, not challenge it or become scrupulous in our own moral insecurities. It does expose, however, the current crisis in Christianity which is rooted in a tainted hierarchy which has caused moral incertitude worldwide. Perhaps it will take Christ returning to sort all of this out at this point.
I appreciate the response. I think this is why I go to bat for Protestantism, because on a fundamental level it's *not* an open and shut case.
What Christ says there is pretty thorny, because the scandal and the doctrine are tied up in each other. The scandalous doctrine is the thing to watch out for.
Christ already places us in a position of needing to deploy spiritual discernment. He clearly is on the side of authorities insofar as they give forth the Law of God, but against them insofar as they don't. And the metric by which we are meant to measure is Christ himself, and him wholistically.
Therefore "many will say Lord, Lord." Right? But also "if they are not against us, they are for us". And "they will stone you and believe they are being faithful to God".
And you're right. All of this is because the chair of Peter got wacky. The assumption that if comes from Peter's chair, it's legitimate and binding is... I'm not saying I'm even against it I principal, it's just obviously problematic. And to insist that people bend themselves to an authority because of the authority itself -- aside from God himself -- is idolatrous. Which of course why there's people who say that Catholics don't have the gospel.
Now I don't believe that statement exactly, but I think I see what's it's aiming at:
A bad cop is a cop, but he's bad. A bad law is a law but it's unlawful. A bad doctor has an MD but you shouldn't trust him.
Not *because* of the name on the tin. Doctors advice doesn't inherently mean good advice. You have to test it.
A mistake was discovered and the mistake was fixed. To do less would be negligence.
It’s “stupid” to miss a train because you were one second late, but alas, that’s reality.
Mistakes happen but God preserves his Church.
Add psychologizing to the list of non-rebuttals you provided.
Not fear. I'm frustrated that a so-called Catholic constantly countersignals his Church with no understanding of its actual theology. I'm frustrated with your antinomianism the way I'm frustrated with my toddler's antinomianism.
Refute my arguments, please.
There’s no argument you’d accept because you’re starting from the assumption that the church is infallible and so can’t be wrong. There’s no evidence or argument that would convince you.
Crypto-presuppositonalism is, again, not a rebuttal. Notice I'm not appealing once to Church authority.
Here, I'll help you rebut me. If you can prove to me that the form of the sacrament is irrelevant, I'll concede the argument.
Can we baptize with sand? How about kool-aid? Maybe vodka? One liquid surely shouldn't make a difference. Can we anoint the sick with motor oil? Maybe we can use pizza for hosts. It has bread!
For a guy who runs a "worldview repair service" you sure do need to fix your antinomian worldview
"I don't need to get baptized because I have a secret baptism of the heart" is the sin of presumption. If you love God, you keep His commandments. This means giving enough of a shit about the Sacraments to make sure they're done right. This isn't to say God is bound BY them. God bound Himself TO them for OUR sake. So we should do it correctly.
Antinomianism is more of an issue these days than Pharisaeism, to the point I don't even entertain the cries of "Pharisee! Pharisee!", especially from antinomian evangelicals and their friends like Yoshi.
A religion can’t hang on “We” vs “I”, it is absurd
That's not a rebuttal, jackass. That's your pride and antinomianism talking.
Do you know why the controversy arose? If a priest is acting in the person of Christ, then the person of Christ is administering the Sacraments.
To say "we" means somebody other than Christ is administering the Sacrament.
Why can't we say "This Is Our Body" during the Liturgy? Surely we can, to do otherwise is "absurd."
You get upset in these discussions because you’re scared I’m correct.