|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: Absolutely, so long as he has the matter, form, and intention.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Can a member of the laity give someone a Trinitarian baptism and have it be valid even if it's illicit? I actually looked this one up some years ago as research for a science fiction short story I was writing. (Short version of the setup: an inebriated computer technician performs an emergency baptism of an artificial intelligence, by saying the required words and dripping some holy water over its computer chips. This computer thus decides to take on Catholic doctrine as new programming instructions, and some years later it arrives in a confessional to unburden itself of a mortal sin that it calculates it may have committed.) The result of my research was that yes, emergency baptism is at least a thing that exists, but the question of its validity would be about number sixty-three on the list of things that the Church would need to decide on in this wacko sci-fi scenario, so I just handwaved it away as being fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: In case of emergency, even a never-baptized atheist can validly (and since this is an emergency, licitly) baptize. They need the correct matter (water, not beer or sand), form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), and intention (wanting to do whatever it is Christians do when they baptize people). That's why we accept baptisms from denominations that think it's just a public statement of faith; if they've got matter, form, and the intention to baptize like Christians do, it counts. A Catholic layperson will be more likely to know the form and to baptize in the manner they've seen other baptisms done (water poured or sprinkled thrice on the baptizand's head, or three immersions), which means if there's an opportunity later to do all the other neat ritual bits, the priest won't have to conditionally rebaptize the person ("If you are not already baptized, I baptize you..."). But their own baptism doesn't make any baptisms they perform intrinsically more valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? There's a sermon by Richard Hooker, on Justification, in which he attacks the Catholic idea of Justification through Works. But he goes on to say that Catholics can be saved, despite this belief, as long as they have Faith. Basically, he argues its OK to have an imperfect understanding of God, because all our understandings are imperfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:As an ELCA, what do I need to know about Missouri and Wisconsin synods of the Lutheran church? A guy was talking at length to me about being Missouri Synod and it seemed almost foreign to me There used to be a ton of different Lutheran denominations in the US. Many of them united to form the Evangelical* Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is the largest Lutheran denomination in the US. It's a big-tent group that is fairly progressive, allowing female ordination and gay marriage for example, but there's a lot of variation and decentralization. The Missouri and Wisconsin synods are American Lutheran groups that did not join the ELCA, they are more traditional/conservative in doctrine and have a more literal interpretation of scripture. Some Lutherans will describe themselves as "Confessional" meaning they subscribe more closely to the OG Protestant documents of the Augsburg Confession. *Evangelical here is used as a translation from the German word describing Lutheranism. Lutherans shouldn't be confused with the American Evangelical movement or being zealous missionaries, because they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
I ranted about it in the last thread but I will say again that I have never felt comfortable when I hear Lutherans use the word "confessional" to describe their Lutheran-ness. This is because I've only ever heard it used as a dog whistle term, where a Confessional Lutheran is a "proper" Lutheran and Christian, compared to those loony ELCA heretics. This may not be the only way the term is used, but that has been my (unfortunate) personal experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? That's a billion dollar question! I'll say that it's been helpful for me to dis-occupy myself from focusing on versions and picking, and to consider instead looking at my spiritual health and the well-being of others. This is of course harder to diagnose than a physical ailment, but I'd argue that you and I have no less an innate ability to gauge and make rapport with a spiritual dimension than the Buddhas, the Prophets, or any living religious leader has. The same tools and wisdoms available to them are largely available to us. I think you will find (if you have not already) that you have remarkable ability to distinguish what is charlatanry and what is sincere, what is idolatry and what is firmly true. At that point I found myself less concerned on whether I have grasped and practice the right version of the truth, and now I'm working to honor and apply the truths that I have learned. I'm not able to say I have the answer to every question, but I've learned enough answers to my questions that I can proceed, if that makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
I think it might similar to finding your political leanings, but more profound. RCC-liberation theology-socialism is the winning combo, the light and the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses. I asked because I got into an argument with some Reformed people online who said that only ordained ministers can baptize; the Great Commission ("Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") was given only to the apostles, and therefore only those with apostolic authority (i.e., ordained ministers) can actually perform valid baptisms. Which surprised the hell out of me because that's some hardcore clericalism right there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Thanks for the responses. The reason for this is since Baptism is universally necessary*, God makes it universally accessible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Thanks for the responses. Yeah wow, that's messed up from my perspective. The teaching in both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that anyone can validly baptize as long as the elements of the sacrament are present and properly employed, though my understanding is that Orthodox will only consider a baptism definitely effective once a person has been chrismated and formally received into the Orthodox Church; there's debate over whether it's effective before then. Catholics consider all valid baptisms fully effective and all baptized Christians to some degree united to the Catholic Church, although the degree of that unity depends on things like apostolic succession and valid sacraments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
nah you can still emergency baptize edit: and i may be pulling this out of my rear end, but i seem to remember someone baptizing with sand when water was not available
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nah you can still emergency baptize It goes water->sand->spit
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nah you can still emergency baptize A former pastor of ours was raised a Quaker and had been dry baptized. The rationale being that water was merely a symbol of God's grace and true baptism was spiritual, not physical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
I'm a misogynistic firebrand confessional Lutheran, AMA
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
He's not being ironic, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:edit: and i may be pulling this out of my rear end, but i seem to remember someone baptizing with sand when water was not available There's a story from the desert fathers about that, but the man who received a sand-baptism was told to get baptized properly afterwards. Although I'd guess wanting to have a bunch of weird dudes rub sand in your eyes so you can join the Kingdom of God probably qualifies as a baptism of desire despite the form being invalid. Jedi Knight Luigi posted:I'm a misogynistic firebrand confessional Lutheran, AMA *Calvinism intensifies* Please, baptismal regeneration is just works-righteousness. You guys are barely even Protestant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Please, baptismal regeneration is just works-righteousness. You guys are barely even Protestant. Do you even post theses bro Jedi Knight Luigi posted:I'm a misogynistic firebrand confessional Lutheran, AMA Why be a firebrand when you joined the reformed church? Not( completely :iamafag: ) trolling here, hellfire preachers is something I associate more with baptism, 2x2s and stuff like that. Also, do you handle snakes or speak in tongues?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I actually looked this one up some years ago as research for a science fiction short story I was writing. (Short version of the setup: an inebriated computer technician performs an emergency baptism of an artificial intelligence, by saying the required words and dripping some holy water over its computer chips. This computer thus decides to take on Catholic doctrine as new programming instructions, and some years later it arrives in a confessional to unburden itself of a mortal sin that it calculates it may have committed.) I would totally read this story, if you are comfortable
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:02
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Question to the Catholics (or any Christianity historian): How did the Catholic Church get so powerful during the Middle Ages? (by which I mean, say, 800's to the end of the 4th Crusade) Deteriorata posted:Largely because priests were the only literate people around in most places and thus many of the functions of government devolved to them by default. I think this is a good short-form answer, particularly for explaining how the Church got in to a strong position in the first place. Around 800 you have the Carolingian Renaissance, whereby Charlemagne begins an educational program for the Frankish clergy and expands literacy among elites; his administrators are in large part literate clergymen. As a result of both great piety and great temporal success you have the famous events of Christmas day 800, on which Charlemagne is acclaimed by the people of Rome as the new emperor and crowned by the Pope. There's some dispute still over to what extent this is Charlemagne's idea, but this is clearly a power grab by the papacy - in return for legitimating the emperors, the emperors have to receive their crown from the popes, and provide the papacy with military support in Italy; it is the least subservient a pope had really hitherto ever been to a purported emperor. At around this time a highly influential forgery is being disseminated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine , the idea behind which is to show that the emperor Constantine had donated the lands of the Papal states to the Popes, and behaved grovelingly towards them. It is used as an instrument for battering secular rulers in the medieval period thereafter. You also have at this time the creation of the first great monasteries; the most significant are probably Fulda (744, St. Sturm), Corvey (Louis the Pious, 844) and Cluny in (910 by William I of Aquitaine). These are intellectual centres for the church well in to the early renaissaince, as well as bastions of great wealth, and are tremendously influential to medieval Christianity. When Carolingian government falls apart and you (very loosely) get the arrival of this broad, contested concept of feudalism. The emperor and kings are weak, and so it becomes even more important for early medieval monarchs like Otto I-III to utilise the reichskirche to do its governing because of the rise in independently spirited hereditary rulers (as opposed to notionally non-proprietary non-hereditary office holding in Carolingian government). Really the rise in the papacy thereafter is usually based on the internal political difficulties the emperors and kings have, wedded to a theological/other greivance a pope has: e.g. the Investiture controversy. Another thing to consider is that in 800 not really that much of Europe is even Christian yet. Take thsi lovely map as a very vague outline:  The Carolingians, Ottonians and Salians and their churches are really going to get of this Christianisation done. Charlemagne is the man who Christianises the Saxons; you then have wars with the Magyars and conversions of Norsemen well in to the 11th century. In the 12th century Pomerania is aggressively colonised by North German aristocrats and monasteries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung_in_Pomerania . So the size and power of Christendom is really growing at around this time. Another thing again to consider is that throughout most of this period there's a kind of slow decline in the relative strength of the Eastern Roman Empire. Its territory goes through phases, but is shrinking. Rome gains relevance as western Christendom grows in strength under its auspices, and simultaneously the prestige of eastern patriarchs and the eastern emperor wanes. But I think it's important to recognise that while you can tell a story about kings needing the church to administer their kingdoms, the same is true many times over for the Papacy. The papacy is governing an almost ungovernable mess in Rome (one of the reasons it spends a century in exile in Avignon) and it is too incompetent to ever get a handle on it. It needs great lay rulers as allies to even keep a handle on its own kingdom. Its ability to do anything in the world is, likewise, totally dependent upon the will of the kings of Christendom. When they are in its corner or where their interests align, the Church has a lot more say; the Church also looks strong if it can exploit the weaknesses of the lay rulers of Europe to its advantage. But then someone like Philip IV will come along who is a much greater earthly prince than the Pope and put him in his place.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Tias posted:Also, do you handle snakes or speak in tongues? if by snakes you mean long skinny pastries, and by speaking in tongues you mean german/norwegian...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:You guys are barely even Protestant. Honestly this right here would be a compliment to a confessional Lutheran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Honestly this right here would be a compliment to a confessional Lutheran. Do I need to start lumping you together with the Catholics and Orthodox, too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Do I need to start lumping you together with the Catholics and Orthodox, too? One of HEY GAL's mercenaries went to a Lutheran service and didn't know it wasn't a Catholic Mass until partway through, so sure, lump him in with us!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:On a related note there was a poll done recently where 71% of evangelicals said Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God. I'm genuinely curious how many Catholics would give the same answer. It's obviously not official Church doctrine, but the Trinity trips up a lot of laymen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I'm genuinely curious how many Catholics would give the same answer. It's obviously not official Church doctrine, but the Trinity trips up a lot of laymen. Maybe, but given that we say the words "begotten, not made" during the Credo every Sunday, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would be lower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Maybe, but given that we say the words "begotten, not made" during the Credo every Sunday, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would be lower. i don't know, man, religious education isn't exactly strong in this country. i'm pretty sure atheists know more about catholicism than catholics on average (according to one study whose methodology i never investigated because i don't really care) then again that's probably sour grapes talking, since most parishes would rather have community volunteers teaching catechesis than paying people with, you know, theology degrees. god bless undergraduates focusing on religious education, maybe you'll get one of the few jobs managing the dang programs but i doubt you'll get paid to teach a class in most places
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:i don't know, man, religious education isn't exactly strong in this country. i'm pretty sure atheists know more about catholicism than catholics on average (according to one study whose methodology i never investigated because i don't really care) I think this is the study you're talking about  yikes
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:i don't know, man, religious education isn't exactly strong in this country. i'm pretty sure atheists know more about catholicism than catholics on average (according to one study whose methodology i never investigated because i don't really care) i am almost certain this is also the reason that whenever you poll Catholics or Orthodox about their political views you get something very close to the US average--because the people in them are average. It's not like hyper-calvinists on the one side or new-age on the other, where you get people making the conscious choice to seek out and join a religious group in part because the people already there agree with them on a bunch of things
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:One of HEY GAL's mercenaries went to a Lutheran service and didn't know it wasn't a Catholic Mass until partway through, so sure, lump him in with us!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I notice in your post here that you seem to be talking about what I would say are several separate issues, and it's not clear to me if you realize that many people consider them separate. One is the issue of how people approach religious, cosmological, and philosophical ideas in terms of truth and authority. Another is the issue of how someone believes their chosen understanding of truth and authority relates to other people who do not have the same beliefs or life experiences that they do. These aren't the only ideas in your post, but these two are very large ideas on their own so let's just stick with them for now. People do reason about their experience, but I am struggling to think of another situation (with that said, the poster who pointed out that it's probably similar to political leanings I think made a good point that I hadn't considered) where there is so much to choose from in terms of schema surrounding an experience that then translates into traditions, beliefs, actions etc. I suppose something like "How do we all know we're seeing the same thing when we talk about colour?" is also similar, but on the whole language then steps in there and makes it a mostly moot point in a day-to-day context. I get the feeling that religious/spiritual belief systems have less of a... default? for lack of a better word, solution. We can also debate things like the existence of the table in front of us, and all those other classic philosophical things, but ultimately the vast majority of people will behave the same around that table regardless of whether or not it could be argued to be something other than that which it appears to be. On the other hand it feels like the nature of a deity, creation, and how those relate to one another and the person thinking about them has more possible 'solutions,' causing people to act in vastly different ways based upon their interpretation of these. I suppose the purpose of my post was more to ask for individual experiences of choosing the 'right' religion - whether that's just because it works for them, as has been said in response, or whether it's because it feels more factually correct. Which may be the separation you are referring to at the start of your post? I hope that made sense, I'm super tired but didn't want you to think I'd posted and abandoned!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Did not know Kirby was a Catholic 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Did not know Kirby was a Catholic I'm the girl listening to Mozart on public transit
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I'm the girl listening to Mozart on public transit
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
If you don't get goosebumps when listening to Verdi's rendition of Dies Irae I don't know what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the latest composer that is cool, after him modern music all sucks Nihon no ongaku wa ichiban desu.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
correction: after him modern music all sucks until the dude who wrote woyczech (19-teens) and arvo part
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:If you don't get goosebumps when listening to Verdi's rendition of Dies Irae I don't know what to tell you For all of Mozart's Dies Irae's weight and intensity, Verdi's Dies Irae really showcases the sheer madness and terror that the day of wrath holds for the Earth. It's operatic, over the top, and perfect at doing what it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:correction: after him modern music all sucks until the dude who wrote woyczech (19-teens) and arvo part An excuse to post music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGSFnZ1mTds Ceciltron posted:For all of Mozart's Dies Irae's weight and intensity, Verdi's Dies Irae really showcases the sheer madness and terror that the day of wrath holds for the Earth. It's operatic, over the top, and perfect at doing what it does. While both those are awesome, I'm rather fond of the original. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsn9LWh230k
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Ceciltron posted:For all of Mozart's Dies Irae's weight and intensity, Verdi's Dies Irae really showcases the sheer madness and terror that the day of wrath holds for the Earth. It's operatic, over the top, and perfect at doing what it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:50
|
|