The Lemon Fool

Apparently it makes a big difference to some people...

"One-word gaffe invalidates thousands of US baptisms"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60409113

Paul

I thought it was 1st April already

DrFfybes wrote:Apparently it makes a big difference to some people...

"One-word gaffe invalidates thousands of US baptisms"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60409113

Paul

Could have chosen a more exciting word... like Nyarlathotep or even good old fashioned Satan

Still it's a shame that the guys in charge of the imaginary exploitation machine couldn't resist the temptation to wring some extra misery out the poor sods who had been sold a dummy by pointing out their sales guy had been loose with the syntax
- perhaps they'll compensate them with an indulgence?
I really hope none of the kids involved has shuffled off prematurely and will have to spend the rest of eternity in some infernal charnel house tormented by pestilent demons due to the stain of original sin


-sd

Is this another aspect of the surreal corruption of personal pronouns in today's Newspeak?

We am Americanisms gone mad!

At least he didn't confuse I with me, or me with myself. Now that would have been truly unforgivable.


GS

I baptise thee into the Esoteric Order of Dagon.

AleisterCrowley wrote:I baptise thee into the Esoteric Order of Dagon.

Can I pay by credit card?

RC

It's free, but there are certain...conditions..attached

AleisterCrowley wrote:It's free, but there are certain...conditions..attached

Free? Doesn't he owe you his soul?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:It's free, but there are certain...conditions..attached

Free? Doesn't he owe you his soul?

I think you are perhaps getting your Old Ones confused, in this case.

"Do you like fish?" is perhaps a more pertinent question for this particular Order…

UncleEbenezer wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:It's free, but there are certain...conditions..attached

Free? Doesn't he owe you his soul?

Free? Doesn't he owe you his sole?

There - back on topic with the difference one small word can make...

VRD

We'll be listening carefully when Harrison is done...

V8

I don’t get it. I may be guilty of casuistry but I cannot see the difference between ‘I’ - one person, whether ordained or not, baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and ‘we – the congregation or even by implication the wider church, since the baptismal sacrament is effected by the Holy Spirit and not the human baptiser.
In neither the Church of Rome nor the C of E is it essential for the (human) baptiser to be ordained or even Christian! It is, for example, acceptable in both denominations for midwives to baptise new-born children who are in extremis, and this was not at all uncommon in the days when infant mortality was very high. If the baptism takes the correct form and the child survives, it is later ‘received’ into the church.

Perhaps someone who understands these arcane mysteries can elucidate.

stewamax wrote:I don’t get it. I may be guilty of casuistry

Or you may be over-thinking. Unlike those who don't think at all before making dogmatic statements.

Since this is the pedants' board, is that a correct use of the word dogma?

Hmm…
I prefer to think that the batty clerics of the RC Diocese of Phoenix are themselves the worst sort of casuists that waste their time contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Thomas Aquinas has much to answer for.
But since this is a Pendants thread and not one of religion or one of moral philosophy, I cannot be dogmatic, especially as the issue was referred to the Vatican - the wellspring of dogma - for an official pronouncement.

stewamax wrote:Hmm…
I prefer to think that the batty clerics of the RC Diocese of Phoenix are themselves the worst sort of casuists that waste their time contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Thomas Aquinas has much to answer for.
But since this is a Pendants thread and not one of religion or one of moral philosophy, I cannot be dogmatic, especially as the issue was referred to the Vatican - the wellspring of dogma - for an official pronouncement.

Since this is a rather subtle language issue, how does Vatican dogma deal with matters of translation and nuances of Newspeak outside their control?

We know that historically a whole raft of Christianity is founded on mistranslations and the changing meaning of words. But what about a pronouncement that's new and can be examined in its own time by native speakers of its language(s)?

UncleEbenezer wrote:We know that historically a whole raft of Christianity is founded on mistranslations and the changing meaning of words. But what about a pronouncement that's new and can be examined in its own time by native speakers of its language(s)?

Indeed. Which is why I think the clerical casuists are up a gum tree, not least as they maintain that the baptism is effected by Jesus through the earthly ministration of the priest. Well not in my book: it is by the Trinity - or to be really pedantic by the Holy Ghost acting as an element of the Trinity.
The 'I' vs 'We' thus seems to me to be an irrelevance that will upset lots of RC parents; if (now theoretically unbaptised) little Johnny has been confirmed and taking the consecrated elements during Mass, has he committed some venial sin that must now be atoned for?
Barmy.

Do RCs believe that unbaptised children do not gain entry to heaven? Sorry I wasn't RC and am now a forgetful old agnostic atheist. I am trying to understand how distressing this would be for parents and if there are cases like infant death that would be compounded by the invalidating of their baptism.

Personally I think it's unethical to cause suffering by telling these people that they/their children are no longer baptised however clearly the Vatican doesn't share my outlook.

AWOL wrote:Do RCs believe that unbaptised children do not gain entry to heaven?

Not any more, since the RC belief in Limbo of Infants was abolished in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI. The very idea that unbaptised infants who were personally sinless could nevertheless be barred from Heaven by the sins of their ancestors was repugnant even to those RC faithful who unquestioningly believed the RC magisterium, as elaborated by the Pope.