If you destroy your sense of hearing, or that of someone else, that does not mean that the world stops making sounds. You, or that other person, simply have become deaf.
Likewise if you destroy your own or someone else's ability to hear God (as he actually speaks), that doesn't mean God has gone away. It simply means that you have committed spiritual suicide or murder. God is still there even if you destroy your own or someone else's organs of hearing.
This is why God insists that children be raised "in the faith." It is not an "adult option." Would you pour lye in your children's ears figuring they shouldn't hear anything until they are adults and can have "hearing aids of their own choosing" installed.
Wise up. Hell's packed already but has infinite capacity, expanding to need.
Showing posts with label baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baptism. Show all posts
Monday, July 19, 2010
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Identifying vanity, which can be quite subtle
I don't really have a long commentary or case study to provide at the moment, but just a thought that I had while reading some commentary on the Psalms by famed British Baptist Charles Spurgeon. Yes, even though he was a Baptist, John Calvin was, well, Calvinist, and Matthew Henry was Presbyterian, I do enjoy reading their commentaries.
Now, one of the great quarrels that the children of the Reformation, especially the Baptists, have with the Catholic Church is that they object to infant baptism. Spurgeon wrote a treatise condemning it quite soundly.
I have written before (check under the baptism label) explaining that infant baptism is biblical and there is scripture that alludes to its practice among the Israelites, who ceremonially washed infants and birth and wrapped them in new swaddling clothing which, when they are taken to the Temple, indicates their admittance into the faith. This is why the Gospel makes a point of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothing (he would have been washed first) and at the right time taken to the Temple.
The Israelites and thus Judaism, from which Christianity springs, had no concept of "waiting" for infants to become adults where they then "declare" for God! Jewish infants were consecrated to God and their faith community upon washing, swaddling, and the Temple presentation with sacrifice. It is from that custom and ritual that John the Baptist obtained the idea to baptize.
That is the greatness of John the Baptist. I often have wondered why more people did not wonder, and ask, "From where did John the Baptist get the idea to baptize people with water?" John the Baptist got the "idea" when the Holy Spirit inspired him to realize that the people needed a new baptism to prepare for the Messiah, the one whose way he knew he was preparing. Thus John the Baptist repeats what people were already doing, but with his strong message of the need to repent and convert. The Jewish people were already dedicating their newborns to God through their washing, swaddling, and infant presentation to the Temple with sacrifice.
It is for this reason that Catholics correctly maintain that the proper Biblical stance is to baptize infants as their entry into the faith community, just as the Israelites had washed, swaddled and brought their infants to the Temple. John the Baptist, through his greatness (remember that Jesus himself called John the Baptist the greatest of men), recognized through the Holy Spirit that the people needed to prepare for a new way, for the Messiah. Thus he "re-washed" believers, baptizing them, just as if they are spiritual and physical infants again. That is why John the Baptist performed "adult" baptism, because he was preparing the way, the new way, the New Covenant, that would come through Jesus Christ. But he used the method that was already firm tradition and the ritual that was part of the Law, which is to wash, swaddle and present at the Temple infants... except now these of necessity were adults who were like infants again, awaiting the Messiah and Savior.
So where does the vanity enter into the point that I am making? With the best of intentions and the most pure of heart, those who are the most critical of the Catholic Church for infant baptism are guilty of vanity. It seems as though no pastors want to give up being "the one" to "lead" and "conduct" an adult to God through adult baptism.
You see, when an infant is baptized one cannot take "credit" for bringing that soul to God, since the infant's parents, and godparents who sponsor the baptism, have made that decision for the child. Thus Catholics are exactly like the people of the Old Covenant, the Chosen People, the Israelites, the Jews of biblical times: they do not "wait" for the child to become an adult and 'choose' God. An infant is washed (baptised), swaddled (the baptismal gown), and presented to the Temple for presentation with sacrifice (brought to the church, blessed, and recorded as a member of the faithful).
My point is not to have dueling scripture or to re-argue the problem and the error of misunderstanding. My point is to help many of you to understand that vanity, personal vanity where one takes "credit" for "bringing a soul to God," is very, very pernicious and subtle, and it hides in even the best and most well intentioned of men and women. The Catholic Church continues what the biblical Temple attending Jews did throughout the centuries and there is no "credit" for doing what is obviously one's parental and faith forming duty, which is to dedicate one's infant to God at the early appropriate time.
Obviously in the early days of the Church, baptism started with adults because it symbolized the break from the Old Covenant and the joining of the New Covenant. But remember this: the New Covenant applies to all, Jesus Christ as Lord brought it for everyone, not just for adults who one day suddenly realize they are "ready." I have observed in people's hearts that one barrier to fruitful dialogue and understanding of the Catholic doctrine-and its origins-results from the unconscious clinging to the vanity of adult baptism, as personal "credit" for "bringing the adult into the fold, "credit" which is pointless and not even part of the Catholic psyche since one is simply doing one's parental duty when one has one's infant baptized.
If you are being honest with me, and yourself, if you imagine and picture the scenario of the truth that I am saying, you will watch your inner screen of emotions carefully and thus detect that qualm of not wanting to give up the adult person being baptized looking at YOU as the one giving them the gift. The fiercely denominational and independent structure of the Protestant faiths is another way to understand this "credit" and baptism "competition" of vanity. Catholic churches don't compete with each other, for example, for being "the one" who "brought that infant to baptism." If anything they have gone too far in the other direction, where it's not as personal a family experience as it used to be in my day. I still remember with horror my godson's baptism was part of something like two dozen families all have a massive baptism event, rather than the personal family experience that it was when my niece was baptized years earlier. Baptism in some parishes have more the whiff of bureaucracy, in other words, than any whiff of vanity. But if one is objective one cannot help but to observe that those who conduct adult baptism and who go out of their way to be intolerant and critical of Catholic infant baptism are, in fact, very strongly tied to the vanity of the taking "credit" for "adding an adult to one's personal flock." Remember, that's God's job and all credit and glory are to him and him alone.
I hope that this has given you something to think about. Vanity, especially in faith, is a very pernicious, subtle, and strong power, one that must be guarded against lest it harm rather than promote humility, sanctity, and giving the true glory to God.
Now, one of the great quarrels that the children of the Reformation, especially the Baptists, have with the Catholic Church is that they object to infant baptism. Spurgeon wrote a treatise condemning it quite soundly.
I have written before (check under the baptism label) explaining that infant baptism is biblical and there is scripture that alludes to its practice among the Israelites, who ceremonially washed infants and birth and wrapped them in new swaddling clothing which, when they are taken to the Temple, indicates their admittance into the faith. This is why the Gospel makes a point of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothing (he would have been washed first) and at the right time taken to the Temple.
The Israelites and thus Judaism, from which Christianity springs, had no concept of "waiting" for infants to become adults where they then "declare" for God! Jewish infants were consecrated to God and their faith community upon washing, swaddling, and the Temple presentation with sacrifice. It is from that custom and ritual that John the Baptist obtained the idea to baptize.
That is the greatness of John the Baptist. I often have wondered why more people did not wonder, and ask, "From where did John the Baptist get the idea to baptize people with water?" John the Baptist got the "idea" when the Holy Spirit inspired him to realize that the people needed a new baptism to prepare for the Messiah, the one whose way he knew he was preparing. Thus John the Baptist repeats what people were already doing, but with his strong message of the need to repent and convert. The Jewish people were already dedicating their newborns to God through their washing, swaddling, and infant presentation to the Temple with sacrifice.
It is for this reason that Catholics correctly maintain that the proper Biblical stance is to baptize infants as their entry into the faith community, just as the Israelites had washed, swaddled and brought their infants to the Temple. John the Baptist, through his greatness (remember that Jesus himself called John the Baptist the greatest of men), recognized through the Holy Spirit that the people needed to prepare for a new way, for the Messiah. Thus he "re-washed" believers, baptizing them, just as if they are spiritual and physical infants again. That is why John the Baptist performed "adult" baptism, because he was preparing the way, the new way, the New Covenant, that would come through Jesus Christ. But he used the method that was already firm tradition and the ritual that was part of the Law, which is to wash, swaddle and present at the Temple infants... except now these of necessity were adults who were like infants again, awaiting the Messiah and Savior.
So where does the vanity enter into the point that I am making? With the best of intentions and the most pure of heart, those who are the most critical of the Catholic Church for infant baptism are guilty of vanity. It seems as though no pastors want to give up being "the one" to "lead" and "conduct" an adult to God through adult baptism.
You see, when an infant is baptized one cannot take "credit" for bringing that soul to God, since the infant's parents, and godparents who sponsor the baptism, have made that decision for the child. Thus Catholics are exactly like the people of the Old Covenant, the Chosen People, the Israelites, the Jews of biblical times: they do not "wait" for the child to become an adult and 'choose' God. An infant is washed (baptised), swaddled (the baptismal gown), and presented to the Temple for presentation with sacrifice (brought to the church, blessed, and recorded as a member of the faithful).
My point is not to have dueling scripture or to re-argue the problem and the error of misunderstanding. My point is to help many of you to understand that vanity, personal vanity where one takes "credit" for "bringing a soul to God," is very, very pernicious and subtle, and it hides in even the best and most well intentioned of men and women. The Catholic Church continues what the biblical Temple attending Jews did throughout the centuries and there is no "credit" for doing what is obviously one's parental and faith forming duty, which is to dedicate one's infant to God at the early appropriate time.
Obviously in the early days of the Church, baptism started with adults because it symbolized the break from the Old Covenant and the joining of the New Covenant. But remember this: the New Covenant applies to all, Jesus Christ as Lord brought it for everyone, not just for adults who one day suddenly realize they are "ready." I have observed in people's hearts that one barrier to fruitful dialogue and understanding of the Catholic doctrine-and its origins-results from the unconscious clinging to the vanity of adult baptism, as personal "credit" for "bringing the adult into the fold, "credit" which is pointless and not even part of the Catholic psyche since one is simply doing one's parental duty when one has one's infant baptized.
If you are being honest with me, and yourself, if you imagine and picture the scenario of the truth that I am saying, you will watch your inner screen of emotions carefully and thus detect that qualm of not wanting to give up the adult person being baptized looking at YOU as the one giving them the gift. The fiercely denominational and independent structure of the Protestant faiths is another way to understand this "credit" and baptism "competition" of vanity. Catholic churches don't compete with each other, for example, for being "the one" who "brought that infant to baptism." If anything they have gone too far in the other direction, where it's not as personal a family experience as it used to be in my day. I still remember with horror my godson's baptism was part of something like two dozen families all have a massive baptism event, rather than the personal family experience that it was when my niece was baptized years earlier. Baptism in some parishes have more the whiff of bureaucracy, in other words, than any whiff of vanity. But if one is objective one cannot help but to observe that those who conduct adult baptism and who go out of their way to be intolerant and critical of Catholic infant baptism are, in fact, very strongly tied to the vanity of the taking "credit" for "adding an adult to one's personal flock." Remember, that's God's job and all credit and glory are to him and him alone.
I hope that this has given you something to think about. Vanity, especially in faith, is a very pernicious, subtle, and strong power, one that must be guarded against lest it harm rather than promote humility, sanctity, and giving the true glory to God.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Debunk cults and answer "Who am I?"
So if there is no reincarnation “Who am I?” LOL, trust me; I understand human nature, so that when all the false beliefs one has been taught and has held fall away, there is a puzzling gap that remains.
If you are asking yourself that question, you have to do two things.
One is that you have to discover for the first time, or rediscover, your own identity, as you would have as a child, where you learn what you like doing, what you dislike, what moves your heart, and what leaves you cold, your biological and cultural roots, and those of your neighbors, and who you love, and who you respect. You learn to find teachers who are not “gurus” but are the type that every human has looked up to throughout history: the man who taught you how to fix a car, the woman who finally made algebra comprehensible to you, the author who has a gift for selecting a topic, such as a period in history, and makes it both interesting and relevant (without pushing an agenda).
The second thing you need to do is to believe in the one God and rediscover your relationship with him. Why is that important? Because the very need to feel “special” and “enlightened” that first drove you to cultist belief is a result of not knowing that all elevation and all loftiness of human spirit comes from God and God alone. Only by realizing that God has unique and loving knowledge of each and every person, regardless of their station in life, can one be elevated and can one feel “enlightened” and “special,” not by making up elitist false history. This is a key understanding of both Christianity and Islam, and that is why they both swept the world with millions of converts and believers, not because of the “sword” or the “Inquisition.” Christianity and Islam shed the light on the truth that God is one, all knowing, and has egalitarian love and concern for each and every human being. Humans realized in both their heads and their hearts the truth of this, and thus threw away their “magical thinking” and their demeaning belief in idols. No babbling self proclaiming “high priestess” of “arcane knowledge” and “past lives” can elevate a single human being one iota in their spirituality and, instead, she demeans her followers by denying them the lofty heritage that is truly theirs: adopted child and beloved of God, able to have a personal relationship with God of worship, service, faith and salvation.
Ha, so I am definitely not unsympathetic, and I never have been. I’m on the side of the angels, who, as Jesus explained, rejoice more at the return of one sinner than in the routine goodness of the faithful. What has distressed me is the stampede toward sin, rather than back toward God, of the past forty years of human history and society. To this day I still wish that even the most vile sinners and disgracefully evil humans find the light and have sincere and total conversion. I have faith and comfort that those who have wronged God and their neighbors so dastardly will be judged by God and thrust into hell, but it’s not like I’m spending my time wishing for their “comeuppance.” Even those who have done personally terrible things to me, I hope that before they are either smited by God and thus are punished in life, or who glide through life on their evil, and then upon death find themselves in eternal hell, hear and understand the truth, repent and make amends with full sincerity (even if being honest and sincere is like a rusty piston in an engine that has trouble working properly at first). It does not make what they did go away, or “OK,” but it would save them from hell and that would satisfy what I consider to be part of my ministry.
So who am I and why do I speak with such authority? If you are sane and well balanced you can relate to me as a human who has a very good understanding of God, but I understand that it’s hard for others to make the flip from thinking we are “reincarnated” players and actors to who we really are. I have both extremes to deal with. One extreme is the New Agers who have had to detox from thinking that I am “reincarnated” whoever they have labeled me with at different times over the past sad and wasted years. They have a gap, where they wonder, “If she is not reincarnated, then how does she know all of these things?” I am sympathetic and will give you an analogy (of course), kind of a literary device to plug the gap while you detox from that way of thinking. The other extreme are those who think they are Bible thumping literalists, but who have actually strayed far from the word of God by assuming that they have individual “insight” into what God “really means and plans to do,” such as having the nerve to interpret Dan and Revelations to assign timing and characters to “the Rapture,” “Antichrist identity,” and “the tribulations.” They ignore that Jesus Christ himself stated very clearly that he himself does not know the timing of the End of Days and that only God knows that. But this does not stop these extremists, who cherry pick the Bible and profane it with their own interpretations and declarations, and also make it into forms of money making entertainment. That extreme actually has the nerve to question me, wanting me to self identify according to the Bible (since that is all they do, assign actors and writing scripts to Biblical prophecy). Well, the analogy and the literary device I will share with the New Agers will also suit the Biblical false prophets just as well.
Before I give the analogy let me point out several things. First of all, as I’ve repeatedly explained, I am not reincarnated and neither is anyone else. Second, people have guardian angels; they are NOT angels. I mean, duh, how hard is that to understand? Humans are humans and angels are angels and they abide in different realms and are totally different from each other. Humans are of matter, energy and time; angels are not of matter, energy or time. So I’m not an angel and neither is anyone else. Third, I am not “revelating.” In other words, I am not adding one iota onto scripture. Instead, I am constantly pointing people back to scripture, to believe it as it is, the final and complete word of God. I am a witness, not a “revealer,” and so, obviously, understand that none of you are revealers of God’s will either. Fourth, I am not a prophet, and neither are any of you. I am not prophesying, either in the sense of conveying God’s words to humans, or in forecasting the future, and neither are any of you. Fifth, I’m not an alien, ha ha ha, that is so stupid I’m embarrassed I have to type this, but hey, I know it needs to be said for that branch of the morons so here it is: I am not an alien and neither are any of you.
So who am I? First you must read and understand what I wrote about the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood, of the Catholic faith. I am a member of the baptismal priesthood and thus can proclaim with full confidence my faith in Catholic doctrine. Rather than wonder “who I am” to speak with such authority, I wish more Catholics would understand and embrace their faith and exercise their baptismal priesthood. By the way, in January it will be fifty five years since I was baptized, my fifty fifth anniversary of my baptismal priesthood and I certainly wish that I was received by others as fifty five years of baptismal priesthood rather than what it has felt like, which is fifty five years of martyrdom. It would be funny if it wasn’t so awful, and the abuse of me used to enable demeaning and flight from God, rather than true living in the Spirit of those who stalked me and my family. But back to my main point; understand that the baptized faithful ALL are expected and able to speak with authority to witness to their faith.
Second, you must understand that what seems like “revealing” teaching that I offer on this blog was well known by centuries of humans prior to this poorly formed and ignorant past several generations of humans. With modern mores and technology people have become, honestly, stupider. So I am not revealing new information; I am teaching people how to slow down and READ what is in black and white in front of you, ALL of the Bible (including the books the children of the Reformation discarded) and to understand the Spirit in which it was written, including in the cultural and faith context of the time. Back when people were agricultural and humble, they “got” the scriptures far more than they do today. All I am doing is explaining what even the average educated person knew even fifty years ago. You don’t better understand God by throwing out books of the Bible, cherry picking only certain sections to read as validating your own imagined self righteousness and further, not understanding the basics of the customs of the times that you are reading (worse, sneering that parts of the Bible are “old fashioned” and “oppressive.”) So the second thing to understand about me is that I am explaining what many of the average wise people in any time in Christian history, both educated and unlettered, could have explained to you in my place.
So how can I speak with total confidence and clarity regardless of the question or topic? It is because I speak only with total Fear of the Lord and within the Spirit. I have absolutely no other motivation but one hundred percent purity of Fear of the Lord. My entire motivation and the endless well of my spiritual being is Fear of the Lord. Spiritually I am comprised of one hundred percent Fear of the Lord. I was born with and am filled totally with the first gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord. I cannot have either less Fear of the Lord or more Fear of the Lord than I have had with perfect constancy throughout my life. When one has total Fear of the Lord, one has total comprehension of the Lord’s ways.
So what is the Biblical reference and analogy, the literary device that I have promised to help those who cannot grasp the simplicity of what I have explained above? Read this passage from Ezekiel, where Ezekiel is first called by God to be his prophet. In this very well known calling God and the Cherubim appear to Ezekiel. Ezekiel has described the Cherubim, the firmament above them, and is about to describe how he viewed God. The first line of that description is Ezekiel 1:26:
Above the firmament over their heads something like a throne could be seen, looking like sapphire. Upon it was seated, up above, one who had the appearance of a man.
Think of me not as God, or one of the Cherubim, but as the big blue chair that God is sitting in during this one and only appearance as such. In other words, I am not the throne of God, but I can be thought of as the “big blue chair” that he sits in when he calls Ezekiel. God does not derive his authority or his greatness from the throne he sits in, nor does the throne hold any power or authority of its own; only God has that. But you can use the literary device of thinking of me as being of service in the most humble way to the Lord God, by being the blue chair that he “sat” in during one Biblical “event.”
Just as altar servers kneel to hold up the open Bible so the celebrating priest can read from it during Mass, making their own bodies a book stand in service of God, I am perfectly pleased and honored to think of myself, to help you to better understand, those of you who struggle, as a big blue chair used one time in order to provide “seating” while God “sits” and calls one of his greatest prophets. The chair is not talking and the chair is not creating doctrine. The chair is the witness and the lowest servant of God. This is why my gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord, allows me to speak with authority, because it gives me humble and perfect witness to God, where I am “the observer” and not “the author.” No analogy is perfect, and this one really isn’t, but it occurred to me as a way that I can explain the fundamentals of my identity to help those who have been deprived of faith and logic to plug the gap in how they view me, a human, while they remediate themselves.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
If you are asking yourself that question, you have to do two things.
One is that you have to discover for the first time, or rediscover, your own identity, as you would have as a child, where you learn what you like doing, what you dislike, what moves your heart, and what leaves you cold, your biological and cultural roots, and those of your neighbors, and who you love, and who you respect. You learn to find teachers who are not “gurus” but are the type that every human has looked up to throughout history: the man who taught you how to fix a car, the woman who finally made algebra comprehensible to you, the author who has a gift for selecting a topic, such as a period in history, and makes it both interesting and relevant (without pushing an agenda).
The second thing you need to do is to believe in the one God and rediscover your relationship with him. Why is that important? Because the very need to feel “special” and “enlightened” that first drove you to cultist belief is a result of not knowing that all elevation and all loftiness of human spirit comes from God and God alone. Only by realizing that God has unique and loving knowledge of each and every person, regardless of their station in life, can one be elevated and can one feel “enlightened” and “special,” not by making up elitist false history. This is a key understanding of both Christianity and Islam, and that is why they both swept the world with millions of converts and believers, not because of the “sword” or the “Inquisition.” Christianity and Islam shed the light on the truth that God is one, all knowing, and has egalitarian love and concern for each and every human being. Humans realized in both their heads and their hearts the truth of this, and thus threw away their “magical thinking” and their demeaning belief in idols. No babbling self proclaiming “high priestess” of “arcane knowledge” and “past lives” can elevate a single human being one iota in their spirituality and, instead, she demeans her followers by denying them the lofty heritage that is truly theirs: adopted child and beloved of God, able to have a personal relationship with God of worship, service, faith and salvation.
Ha, so I am definitely not unsympathetic, and I never have been. I’m on the side of the angels, who, as Jesus explained, rejoice more at the return of one sinner than in the routine goodness of the faithful. What has distressed me is the stampede toward sin, rather than back toward God, of the past forty years of human history and society. To this day I still wish that even the most vile sinners and disgracefully evil humans find the light and have sincere and total conversion. I have faith and comfort that those who have wronged God and their neighbors so dastardly will be judged by God and thrust into hell, but it’s not like I’m spending my time wishing for their “comeuppance.” Even those who have done personally terrible things to me, I hope that before they are either smited by God and thus are punished in life, or who glide through life on their evil, and then upon death find themselves in eternal hell, hear and understand the truth, repent and make amends with full sincerity (even if being honest and sincere is like a rusty piston in an engine that has trouble working properly at first). It does not make what they did go away, or “OK,” but it would save them from hell and that would satisfy what I consider to be part of my ministry.
So who am I and why do I speak with such authority? If you are sane and well balanced you can relate to me as a human who has a very good understanding of God, but I understand that it’s hard for others to make the flip from thinking we are “reincarnated” players and actors to who we really are. I have both extremes to deal with. One extreme is the New Agers who have had to detox from thinking that I am “reincarnated” whoever they have labeled me with at different times over the past sad and wasted years. They have a gap, where they wonder, “If she is not reincarnated, then how does she know all of these things?” I am sympathetic and will give you an analogy (of course), kind of a literary device to plug the gap while you detox from that way of thinking. The other extreme are those who think they are Bible thumping literalists, but who have actually strayed far from the word of God by assuming that they have individual “insight” into what God “really means and plans to do,” such as having the nerve to interpret Dan and Revelations to assign timing and characters to “the Rapture,” “Antichrist identity,” and “the tribulations.” They ignore that Jesus Christ himself stated very clearly that he himself does not know the timing of the End of Days and that only God knows that. But this does not stop these extremists, who cherry pick the Bible and profane it with their own interpretations and declarations, and also make it into forms of money making entertainment. That extreme actually has the nerve to question me, wanting me to self identify according to the Bible (since that is all they do, assign actors and writing scripts to Biblical prophecy). Well, the analogy and the literary device I will share with the New Agers will also suit the Biblical false prophets just as well.
Before I give the analogy let me point out several things. First of all, as I’ve repeatedly explained, I am not reincarnated and neither is anyone else. Second, people have guardian angels; they are NOT angels. I mean, duh, how hard is that to understand? Humans are humans and angels are angels and they abide in different realms and are totally different from each other. Humans are of matter, energy and time; angels are not of matter, energy or time. So I’m not an angel and neither is anyone else. Third, I am not “revelating.” In other words, I am not adding one iota onto scripture. Instead, I am constantly pointing people back to scripture, to believe it as it is, the final and complete word of God. I am a witness, not a “revealer,” and so, obviously, understand that none of you are revealers of God’s will either. Fourth, I am not a prophet, and neither are any of you. I am not prophesying, either in the sense of conveying God’s words to humans, or in forecasting the future, and neither are any of you. Fifth, I’m not an alien, ha ha ha, that is so stupid I’m embarrassed I have to type this, but hey, I know it needs to be said for that branch of the morons so here it is: I am not an alien and neither are any of you.
So who am I? First you must read and understand what I wrote about the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood, of the Catholic faith. I am a member of the baptismal priesthood and thus can proclaim with full confidence my faith in Catholic doctrine. Rather than wonder “who I am” to speak with such authority, I wish more Catholics would understand and embrace their faith and exercise their baptismal priesthood. By the way, in January it will be fifty five years since I was baptized, my fifty fifth anniversary of my baptismal priesthood and I certainly wish that I was received by others as fifty five years of baptismal priesthood rather than what it has felt like, which is fifty five years of martyrdom. It would be funny if it wasn’t so awful, and the abuse of me used to enable demeaning and flight from God, rather than true living in the Spirit of those who stalked me and my family. But back to my main point; understand that the baptized faithful ALL are expected and able to speak with authority to witness to their faith.
Second, you must understand that what seems like “revealing” teaching that I offer on this blog was well known by centuries of humans prior to this poorly formed and ignorant past several generations of humans. With modern mores and technology people have become, honestly, stupider. So I am not revealing new information; I am teaching people how to slow down and READ what is in black and white in front of you, ALL of the Bible (including the books the children of the Reformation discarded) and to understand the Spirit in which it was written, including in the cultural and faith context of the time. Back when people were agricultural and humble, they “got” the scriptures far more than they do today. All I am doing is explaining what even the average educated person knew even fifty years ago. You don’t better understand God by throwing out books of the Bible, cherry picking only certain sections to read as validating your own imagined self righteousness and further, not understanding the basics of the customs of the times that you are reading (worse, sneering that parts of the Bible are “old fashioned” and “oppressive.”) So the second thing to understand about me is that I am explaining what many of the average wise people in any time in Christian history, both educated and unlettered, could have explained to you in my place.
So how can I speak with total confidence and clarity regardless of the question or topic? It is because I speak only with total Fear of the Lord and within the Spirit. I have absolutely no other motivation but one hundred percent purity of Fear of the Lord. My entire motivation and the endless well of my spiritual being is Fear of the Lord. Spiritually I am comprised of one hundred percent Fear of the Lord. I was born with and am filled totally with the first gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord. I cannot have either less Fear of the Lord or more Fear of the Lord than I have had with perfect constancy throughout my life. When one has total Fear of the Lord, one has total comprehension of the Lord’s ways.
So what is the Biblical reference and analogy, the literary device that I have promised to help those who cannot grasp the simplicity of what I have explained above? Read this passage from Ezekiel, where Ezekiel is first called by God to be his prophet. In this very well known calling God and the Cherubim appear to Ezekiel. Ezekiel has described the Cherubim, the firmament above them, and is about to describe how he viewed God. The first line of that description is Ezekiel 1:26:
Above the firmament over their heads something like a throne could be seen, looking like sapphire. Upon it was seated, up above, one who had the appearance of a man.
Think of me not as God, or one of the Cherubim, but as the big blue chair that God is sitting in during this one and only appearance as such. In other words, I am not the throne of God, but I can be thought of as the “big blue chair” that he sits in when he calls Ezekiel. God does not derive his authority or his greatness from the throne he sits in, nor does the throne hold any power or authority of its own; only God has that. But you can use the literary device of thinking of me as being of service in the most humble way to the Lord God, by being the blue chair that he “sat” in during one Biblical “event.”
Just as altar servers kneel to hold up the open Bible so the celebrating priest can read from it during Mass, making their own bodies a book stand in service of God, I am perfectly pleased and honored to think of myself, to help you to better understand, those of you who struggle, as a big blue chair used one time in order to provide “seating” while God “sits” and calls one of his greatest prophets. The chair is not talking and the chair is not creating doctrine. The chair is the witness and the lowest servant of God. This is why my gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord, allows me to speak with authority, because it gives me humble and perfect witness to God, where I am “the observer” and not “the author.” No analogy is perfect, and this one really isn’t, but it occurred to me as a way that I can explain the fundamentals of my identity to help those who have been deprived of faith and logic to plug the gap in how they view me, a human, while they remediate themselves.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Anyone can baptize in a dire emergency
It is important that people realize that anyone, even if you are not baptized yourself, can give a Catholic baptism to an adult or a child if your intention is sincere and if a priest cannot be obtained, in the event of a dire emergency.
An example would be at an accident scene where the injured, whether baby, child or adult, has not been baptized and is in danger of dying right away. This is documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1256, 1240) and in my day was taught to all Catholic youngsters. Here is the procedure.
You need some sort water, even the tiniest amount. The usual place to look is if there is a puddle or source of water nearby. If water is absolutely not available you can use a fluid such as soda or any liquid available (such as windshield wiper fluid), whatever is at hand. If there is absolutely no fluid you can spit in your hand and use that.
Pour or if small amount wipe the fluid on the child or adult's forehead while saying:
"(Speak their name here), I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Thus, if the infant or adult dies, you have baptized them fully within the grace of baptism of the Catholic faith. This isn't a "retrograde" or "enforced conversion," the person does not "become a Catholic against their will." It demonstrates that Catholics affirm that they are all, both priests and laity, within the "priesthood of Christ" and they can, in dire emergency, confer the grace of Baptism on those who are at risk of dying without that grace.
Obviously if the child or adult survives, you must speak to a priest to obtain advice about how to proceed.
I hope you have found this useful, but obviously hope that you never have to use this function of our shared "common priesthood."
In the past I've had a small vial of water in my traveling first aid kit in case I have ever had to do this. I've only been first on the scene of an accident once, and the men were not in danger of death, so I've not had to do this myself, but have been prepared since earliest childhood to do so, if need be.
An example would be at an accident scene where the injured, whether baby, child or adult, has not been baptized and is in danger of dying right away. This is documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1256, 1240) and in my day was taught to all Catholic youngsters. Here is the procedure.
You need some sort water, even the tiniest amount. The usual place to look is if there is a puddle or source of water nearby. If water is absolutely not available you can use a fluid such as soda or any liquid available (such as windshield wiper fluid), whatever is at hand. If there is absolutely no fluid you can spit in your hand and use that.
Pour or if small amount wipe the fluid on the child or adult's forehead while saying:
"(Speak their name here), I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Thus, if the infant or adult dies, you have baptized them fully within the grace of baptism of the Catholic faith. This isn't a "retrograde" or "enforced conversion," the person does not "become a Catholic against their will." It demonstrates that Catholics affirm that they are all, both priests and laity, within the "priesthood of Christ" and they can, in dire emergency, confer the grace of Baptism on those who are at risk of dying without that grace.
Obviously if the child or adult survives, you must speak to a priest to obtain advice about how to proceed.
I hope you have found this useful, but obviously hope that you never have to use this function of our shared "common priesthood."
In the past I've had a small vial of water in my traveling first aid kit in case I have ever had to do this. I've only been first on the scene of an accident once, and the men were not in danger of death, so I've not had to do this myself, but have been prepared since earliest childhood to do so, if need be.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (2)
This next topic is so vast and important that I’m going to present it in easy to understand sections that build upon each other. The topic is the Catholic priesthood, and understanding what it is to be a priest.
First I must make the point that I am, as I explained in my introduction, using Catholic doctrine as the basis for this tutorial. This does not imply that only the Catholic Church contains the practices I describe throughout this series, as different Christian denominations maintain, or not, differing components from the mother Church. However, with the exception of the Orthodox Church, the “eastern tradition,” all Christians up until the Reformation had the common doctrine and furnishings of worship as I describe here in this series.
What is the priesthood, and what does it mean to be a Catholic priest, and where does the current structure of the priesthood come from? First, let me address a modern misconception that the priesthood is an “elite” position with a “job description.” That concept has never been true, and is wrong for two reasons. One is that under Catholic doctrine all the faithful are considered priests, called the “baptismal priesthood.” The second reason this is wrong is that the “ministerial priesthood” is not a job description to which one attains, but has its roots in the priesthood of the Old Covenant, which has the purpose of offering sacrifice.
So that you don’t have to believe me, but read the actual words of the Catholic Church, here are readings from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The correctness of the Catechism is, by the way, a responsibility of the Pope, one of his “job responsibilities!” This means that the Pope “signs off” on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all updates and clarifications. This is not a work of the Pope’s “infallibility” per se; it is, rather, one of his responsibilities as Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ to ensure accuracy and “quality control.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church is, to quote Pope John Paul II in his introduction, “a compendium of all catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals… a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions.” This means that the Catechism is a statement of doctrine that the Church has always maintained and guarded, but assembled into one reference book so that local churches can have the complete set of doctrine from which to draw upon as a resource locally. Pope John Paul II even calls it a “reference text.”
Thus, here is the Catholic doctrine regarding the priesthood of all the faithful.
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church, “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be…a holy priesthood.”
Let me explain. Far from demeaning parishioners, the lay people, and “reserving priesthood for the elite hierarchy,” Catholic doctrine has always maintained that all the faithful are members of the priesthood. This is called the “baptismal priesthood,” and each member carries out their participation in the priesthood of Christ according to their vocation. I cannot tell you how annoyed I have been with non-Catholic Christians who blatantly lie, willfully or out of ignorance, that the Catholic priesthood is somehow elitist and separating of the people from Jesus Christ, when the opposite is true. In fairness in the crisis of faith that affects all Christians in this society, Catholics themselves of the past two generations have lost track of the realization that they, through Baptism and Confirmation, have been initiated into the very real priesthood of Jesus Christ. They are then speechless when non-Catholics criticize them, quoting from scriptures the very basis that yes, indeed, Catholic doctrine agrees, which is the priesthood of the faithful. I sigh in extreme exasperation and get headaches of annoyance, and my blood pressure rises, I won’t hide those facts from you.
While leaving discussion of infant Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation to later tutorials, let me make this pertinent point. I’ve explained it before in posts under the tag of Baptism, but now you probably understand it more easily. Baptism of infants is a continuation of the washing and swaddling that Israelite infants received after their birth to bring them to the Temple and be initiated into their faith. John the Baptist did not “invent” baptism and he didn’t “mean for it to be for adults.” John the Baptist recognized that a new baptism will be needed when the Messiah comes; that no longer the washing of the infant, the putting of the infant in new swaddling clothes, and taking the infant to the Temple with the appropriate sacrifice made one a member of the faithful that the Messiah will call. John the Baptist, called by Jesus the greatest born of human woman, understood that a new Baptism is needed, of water and Spirit. This Baptism was given, obviously, to adults as the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant took place, with the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Catholic Church always understood that infants are to be consecrated to God at their birth, just as had been true of the Israelite infants. This is the Baptismal origin of both the practice of baptizing infants and the Catholic doctrine that upon their baptism they are part of the “baptismal priesthood.”
Recognizing that infants cannot have a vocation other than to be infants, the active period of the “baptismal priesthood” of children commences at their thirteenth birthday when they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Again, without preempting what I want to explain about this sacrament in future tutorials, I will make some simple points. At thirteen in the Israelite tradition of the Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, children are viewed as being adults regarding their responsibility to God and their faith. Confirmation is a continuation of that understanding and, again, it is where the Old Covenant meets the New Covenant. This is why the Catechism section that I have just quoted calls the priesthood of the Christian community, the laity, a “baptismal priesthood” but one where the faithful are fully “consecrated” “through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.”
Yes, you Catholic parents who are reading this and who have either not baptized your child or had them receive Confirmation; this is why there is a problem. It is not the Catholic Church being “mean” but rather, these are the steps one takes to be consecrated, to be made a sacred member of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, exactly as when in the Jewish faith, the Bar Mitzvah boy must actually study and do his Bar Mitzvah to be the Bar Mitzvah boy; just thinking good thoughts and going to synagogue is not the same.
So this directly addresses the dignity of the laity. The Catholic laity is not only dignified, it is priestly and each and every person, male or female, married, single or divorced, straight or gay, rich or poor are a member of the “baptismal priesthood” and are “consecrated” “in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king” if they have received Baptism and Confirmation, period. From the point of those sacraments onward, throughout one’s life, it is “each according to his own vocation” that the baptismal priest exercises their priesthood. Here is further explanation.
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its won proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its won sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Notice that rather than being an upward hierarchy, “the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood.” Thus the “ministerial priesthood” serves the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood. To summarize:
1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the “common priesthood of the faithful.” Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.
1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgeicum), and pastoral governance (munus regendi).
1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.
I’m going to wrap up this segment of discussion here, even though I know it raises even more questions! But I want to keep this a “one topic at a time” approach as much as possible. Therefore my summary point of this section is that Christians should understand that Catholics, through Baptism and Confirmation, are considered of the priesthood of Christ and that while this differs from the ministerial priesthood, there is a dignity of vocation that if anything is under-recognized and under utilized among Catholics themselves. Rather than agitating an erroneous belief that the Catholic “hierarch” somehow “keeps down the dignity” of the laity, everyone needs to understand that Catholic doctrine most clearly states as it has from Apostolic times that the opposite is true. When I write later about the apostolic basis for the understanding of the sacrament of Confirmation, you will see that even more clearly. I honestly have been disappointed with many Catholics at their lack of understanding of the dignity and the calling of the baptismal priesthood.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
First I must make the point that I am, as I explained in my introduction, using Catholic doctrine as the basis for this tutorial. This does not imply that only the Catholic Church contains the practices I describe throughout this series, as different Christian denominations maintain, or not, differing components from the mother Church. However, with the exception of the Orthodox Church, the “eastern tradition,” all Christians up until the Reformation had the common doctrine and furnishings of worship as I describe here in this series.
What is the priesthood, and what does it mean to be a Catholic priest, and where does the current structure of the priesthood come from? First, let me address a modern misconception that the priesthood is an “elite” position with a “job description.” That concept has never been true, and is wrong for two reasons. One is that under Catholic doctrine all the faithful are considered priests, called the “baptismal priesthood.” The second reason this is wrong is that the “ministerial priesthood” is not a job description to which one attains, but has its roots in the priesthood of the Old Covenant, which has the purpose of offering sacrifice.
So that you don’t have to believe me, but read the actual words of the Catholic Church, here are readings from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The correctness of the Catechism is, by the way, a responsibility of the Pope, one of his “job responsibilities!” This means that the Pope “signs off” on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all updates and clarifications. This is not a work of the Pope’s “infallibility” per se; it is, rather, one of his responsibilities as Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ to ensure accuracy and “quality control.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church is, to quote Pope John Paul II in his introduction, “a compendium of all catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals… a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions.” This means that the Catechism is a statement of doctrine that the Church has always maintained and guarded, but assembled into one reference book so that local churches can have the complete set of doctrine from which to draw upon as a resource locally. Pope John Paul II even calls it a “reference text.”
Thus, here is the Catholic doctrine regarding the priesthood of all the faithful.
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church, “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be…a holy priesthood.”
Let me explain. Far from demeaning parishioners, the lay people, and “reserving priesthood for the elite hierarchy,” Catholic doctrine has always maintained that all the faithful are members of the priesthood. This is called the “baptismal priesthood,” and each member carries out their participation in the priesthood of Christ according to their vocation. I cannot tell you how annoyed I have been with non-Catholic Christians who blatantly lie, willfully or out of ignorance, that the Catholic priesthood is somehow elitist and separating of the people from Jesus Christ, when the opposite is true. In fairness in the crisis of faith that affects all Christians in this society, Catholics themselves of the past two generations have lost track of the realization that they, through Baptism and Confirmation, have been initiated into the very real priesthood of Jesus Christ. They are then speechless when non-Catholics criticize them, quoting from scriptures the very basis that yes, indeed, Catholic doctrine agrees, which is the priesthood of the faithful. I sigh in extreme exasperation and get headaches of annoyance, and my blood pressure rises, I won’t hide those facts from you.
While leaving discussion of infant Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation to later tutorials, let me make this pertinent point. I’ve explained it before in posts under the tag of Baptism, but now you probably understand it more easily. Baptism of infants is a continuation of the washing and swaddling that Israelite infants received after their birth to bring them to the Temple and be initiated into their faith. John the Baptist did not “invent” baptism and he didn’t “mean for it to be for adults.” John the Baptist recognized that a new baptism will be needed when the Messiah comes; that no longer the washing of the infant, the putting of the infant in new swaddling clothes, and taking the infant to the Temple with the appropriate sacrifice made one a member of the faithful that the Messiah will call. John the Baptist, called by Jesus the greatest born of human woman, understood that a new Baptism is needed, of water and Spirit. This Baptism was given, obviously, to adults as the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant took place, with the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Catholic Church always understood that infants are to be consecrated to God at their birth, just as had been true of the Israelite infants. This is the Baptismal origin of both the practice of baptizing infants and the Catholic doctrine that upon their baptism they are part of the “baptismal priesthood.”
Recognizing that infants cannot have a vocation other than to be infants, the active period of the “baptismal priesthood” of children commences at their thirteenth birthday when they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Again, without preempting what I want to explain about this sacrament in future tutorials, I will make some simple points. At thirteen in the Israelite tradition of the Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, children are viewed as being adults regarding their responsibility to God and their faith. Confirmation is a continuation of that understanding and, again, it is where the Old Covenant meets the New Covenant. This is why the Catechism section that I have just quoted calls the priesthood of the Christian community, the laity, a “baptismal priesthood” but one where the faithful are fully “consecrated” “through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.”
Yes, you Catholic parents who are reading this and who have either not baptized your child or had them receive Confirmation; this is why there is a problem. It is not the Catholic Church being “mean” but rather, these are the steps one takes to be consecrated, to be made a sacred member of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, exactly as when in the Jewish faith, the Bar Mitzvah boy must actually study and do his Bar Mitzvah to be the Bar Mitzvah boy; just thinking good thoughts and going to synagogue is not the same.
So this directly addresses the dignity of the laity. The Catholic laity is not only dignified, it is priestly and each and every person, male or female, married, single or divorced, straight or gay, rich or poor are a member of the “baptismal priesthood” and are “consecrated” “in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king” if they have received Baptism and Confirmation, period. From the point of those sacraments onward, throughout one’s life, it is “each according to his own vocation” that the baptismal priest exercises their priesthood. Here is further explanation.
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its won proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its won sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Notice that rather than being an upward hierarchy, “the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood.” Thus the “ministerial priesthood” serves the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood. To summarize:
1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the “common priesthood of the faithful.” Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.
1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgeicum), and pastoral governance (munus regendi).
1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.
I’m going to wrap up this segment of discussion here, even though I know it raises even more questions! But I want to keep this a “one topic at a time” approach as much as possible. Therefore my summary point of this section is that Christians should understand that Catholics, through Baptism and Confirmation, are considered of the priesthood of Christ and that while this differs from the ministerial priesthood, there is a dignity of vocation that if anything is under-recognized and under utilized among Catholics themselves. Rather than agitating an erroneous belief that the Catholic “hierarch” somehow “keeps down the dignity” of the laity, everyone needs to understand that Catholic doctrine most clearly states as it has from Apostolic times that the opposite is true. When I write later about the apostolic basis for the understanding of the sacrament of Confirmation, you will see that even more clearly. I honestly have been disappointed with many Catholics at their lack of understanding of the dignity and the calling of the baptismal priesthood.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Mormon "proxy baptism" is a CULT belief
This article reports how the Catholic Church has forbidden parishes from providing birth and other records to Mormons for use in their genealogy database due to the Mormon desire to "baptize" into their LDS faith everyone, including the dead.
http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_9363471?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
***
Friends, as Jesus said, those who are not against us are with us, when he told the disciples not to attack non-followers of Jesus who were nonetheless baptizing people in the name of Jesus. So I have refrained from being critical of the Church of Later Day Saints because I understand their love of Jesus. But the LDS Church is based on invalid personal revelation and further, proxy baptism is an example of their CULT non-Christian practice.
This is why it is CULT practice. To assume that baptizing someone who is dead has any disposition at all over their soul is assuming that your human actions have precedent over the judgement that God has already rendered on the soul upon the death of the person. The soul is not hanging around in some waiting room for a measly human to "decide" to "offer" them a baptism. The instant that a person dies they are rendered by God, PERIOD. To think that you have any control over or contact with a soul is an outrageous cult belief. I really have no patience with this.
Oh, and to those "inconvenienced" in their genealogy research? Screw your frigging genealogy research. It's not your ancestors that matter but how you live your life now. I like doing amateur genealogy research too, but I don't give a frig for doing it through them if it is just a front for cheap amoral cultists putting themselves over God.
http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_9363471?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
***
Friends, as Jesus said, those who are not against us are with us, when he told the disciples not to attack non-followers of Jesus who were nonetheless baptizing people in the name of Jesus. So I have refrained from being critical of the Church of Later Day Saints because I understand their love of Jesus. But the LDS Church is based on invalid personal revelation and further, proxy baptism is an example of their CULT non-Christian practice.
This is why it is CULT practice. To assume that baptizing someone who is dead has any disposition at all over their soul is assuming that your human actions have precedent over the judgement that God has already rendered on the soul upon the death of the person. The soul is not hanging around in some waiting room for a measly human to "decide" to "offer" them a baptism. The instant that a person dies they are rendered by God, PERIOD. To think that you have any control over or contact with a soul is an outrageous cult belief. I really have no patience with this.
Oh, and to those "inconvenienced" in their genealogy research? Screw your frigging genealogy research. It's not your ancestors that matter but how you live your life now. I like doing amateur genealogy research too, but I don't give a frig for doing it through them if it is just a front for cheap amoral cultists putting themselves over God.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Important information about baptism
As a Catholic I belong to the Church founded by Jesus Christ that has its roots firmly in both the Apostolic tradition and lineage and also in the word as given to the Israelites by God. Growing up I was very surprised that not only were many Christians incorrect in their Biblical understanding and lax in their obedience to the Lord but that they expressed calumny and insults toward Catholics. An example is the subject of infant baptism. Here I will point you to the scripture that specifies that infants were born of the water in ancient Israel in order to distinguish them from the pagans. It is from the ancient Israelite practice of infant baptism that John the Baptist drew in order to do his baptism, which was a renewal of baptism, not a new invention for adults.
Ezechiel 16: 1-5
Thus the word of the Lord came to me: 2. Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations:
[My comment. The Lord is angry at the Israelites and is instructing Ezechiel to basically yell at them on the Lord's behalf. What follows is the words that the Lord puts in the mouth of Ezechiel to say.]
3. Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: By origin and birth you are of the land of Chanaan; your father was an Amorrite and your mother a Hethite.
[My comment. The Lord is basically opening up his statement by insulting the Israelites. He is accusing them of being of pagan parents. The Lord is saying that instead of being Israelites born and bred they might as well think of themselves as having a father from one non-Israelite pagan tribe, the Amorrites, and having a Hethite pagan mother. What he literally means is that the Israelites have absorbed pagan belief and practices from the land they live in and the pagan tribes that they live among. He is now going to cite proof of this accusation.]
4. As for your birth, the day you were born your navel cord was not cut; you were neither washed with water nor anointed, nor were you rubbed with salt, nor swaddled in swaddling clothes.
[My comment. Um, *cough.* The first example of how to distinguish an Israelite from a pagan that is cited by God himself is that the pagan has an uncut navel cord, is not washed with water, is not anointed with oil, is not rubbed with salt, and is not swaddled in swaddling clothes. So through this accusation God preserves in the Old Testament a description of what a newborn Israelite should experience. An infant is to have navel cord cut, be washed with water, anointed, rubbed with salt, and swaddled in swaddling clothes (in other words, not redressed in the birth blanket but given new birth clothes). You know, like a christening gown is used today? Um, even without providing a picture you could not have a clearer description from the Lord God himself that Israelite babies were baptized immediately upon birth, and that this "washing" and "anointing" distinguished them from the pagans. No one in their right mind "waited" to do adult baptism.]
5. No one looked on you with pity or compassion to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out on the ground as something loathsome the day you were born.
[My comment. Gosh, isn't that clear? God is not saying that it's good hygiene to give a good scrub a dub to a newborn baby. He is stating that if the baby is not cut in navel, "washed, anointed and rubbed" followed by swaddling, then he is treated as if he is garbage and an abomination. In other words, the baby that is not "baptized" is left by negligent parents to be considered garbage and not an Israelite.]
The next three lines of scripture relates how this un-baptized infant would be left weltering in its own blood, living wild in the field, naked until adulthood, at which point the Lord rescues through love the child that has grown outside the community as an adult. This is both a metaphor and literal description. The Lord now describes in theory doing to the adult what should have been done as a newborn Israelite. So here the Lord is not describing a literal "if you missed your birth baptism by your parents you can get an adult baptism from me." The Lord is describing the literal infant "washing, anointing, rubbing and swaddling" that all, even these fallen away, Jewish infants would have received. He is being symbolic in describing what comes next as to how he can claim for his own through an adult washing, anointing and "clothing."
8. Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of my cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord God. 9. Then I bathed you with water, washed away your blood, and anointed you with oil. 10. I clothed you with an embroidered gown, put sandals of fine leather on your feet; I gave you a fine linen sash and silk robes to wear.
You see, while the Lord God is speaking of how Israel has fallen away as a whole into idolatry, God is using a literal description of the accepted rites of the time. Thus we have definitive proof in the words of the Lord God himself that during the time of Ezechiel (the exile to Babylon with one specific date in Ezechiel identified as being in the year 593 B.C.) the Israelites baptized their babies on birth simultaneously after the cutting of the navel cord. It is not a simple washing up of the baby because the word "anointing" is used, and swaddling clothes are given to the baby after being born of the water, anointed and rubbed with salt. This was a baptism ritual that identified the baby as being an Israelite. Those who "missed the chance" and grew up as a pagan (unbaptized) have a chance to be baptized as an adult by grace (not merit) of God's love for the unbaptized person. This extensive detailed passage, while not intended as a baptismal instruction, could not be clearer.
The Lord God specifies the lack of baptism of the newborn child as the means by which he insults the fallen away audience of Ezechiel's scolding. God does not have Ezechiel rip into them by mentioning their unholy and pagan practices and lapses in adult faith. He used the analogy of the baptism of the newborn baby into the Israelite community as the way to characterize their lack of obedience, saying "You act as though you were never baptized as an Israelite as a baby."
I really don't know how any "Christian" can criticize Catholics for practicing infant baptism since that is clearly the distinguishing ritual of the newborn Israelite baby specifically documented here as early as six hundred years before Christ was born! That's "where St. John the Baptist got the idea from." St. John the Baptist was recognizing that the people had again fallen away, even as they were continuing to baptize infants they were not living as consecrated-to-God Israelites. Hence St. John the Baptist started a ritual of adult baptism to REMIND people of the baptism they had received as the newborn infant and what it meant. St. John the Baptist was NOT "inventing adult baptism." All Jewish babies, including Jesus, would have had their navel cord cut and then immediately be brought into the community (baptized) by being "washed" "anointed" "rubbed" and "swaddled." Remember when Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why do you think that was important enough to mention in the Gospel? The angel appears and declares to the shepherds:
Luke 2: 12
And this shall be a sign to you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
Why would an angel mention the swaddling clothes? Because the swaddling clothes indicated a Jewish newborn infant, not a pagan newborn infant. Mary would have cut his cord, washed, anointed and rubbed him with salt first and then swaddled him. Jesus, in other words, would have been "baptized" by his parents at birth just as all the other Jewish infants were, as God himself states in Ezechiel, for the centuries before to distinguish themselves from the pagans and that they are through, yes, call it what it is, this "sacrament," being "baptized" into the community of Israelites FROM BIRTH.
I really was shocked and discouraged when I realized that there is such poor Biblical scholarship (usually among those who proclaim it loudest) that God's own explicit words on this subject are not noticed.
I hope this helps. Gosh, reading the Bible accurately cannot hurt can it? Only false accusations and ignorance hurt. Folks ought to be grateful to the Catholics; we even keep the swaddling "new clothes" through the christening gown!
Ezechiel 16: 1-5
Thus the word of the Lord came to me: 2. Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations:
[My comment. The Lord is angry at the Israelites and is instructing Ezechiel to basically yell at them on the Lord's behalf. What follows is the words that the Lord puts in the mouth of Ezechiel to say.]
3. Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: By origin and birth you are of the land of Chanaan; your father was an Amorrite and your mother a Hethite.
[My comment. The Lord is basically opening up his statement by insulting the Israelites. He is accusing them of being of pagan parents. The Lord is saying that instead of being Israelites born and bred they might as well think of themselves as having a father from one non-Israelite pagan tribe, the Amorrites, and having a Hethite pagan mother. What he literally means is that the Israelites have absorbed pagan belief and practices from the land they live in and the pagan tribes that they live among. He is now going to cite proof of this accusation.]
4. As for your birth, the day you were born your navel cord was not cut; you were neither washed with water nor anointed, nor were you rubbed with salt, nor swaddled in swaddling clothes.
[My comment. Um, *cough.* The first example of how to distinguish an Israelite from a pagan that is cited by God himself is that the pagan has an uncut navel cord, is not washed with water, is not anointed with oil, is not rubbed with salt, and is not swaddled in swaddling clothes. So through this accusation God preserves in the Old Testament a description of what a newborn Israelite should experience. An infant is to have navel cord cut, be washed with water, anointed, rubbed with salt, and swaddled in swaddling clothes (in other words, not redressed in the birth blanket but given new birth clothes). You know, like a christening gown is used today? Um, even without providing a picture you could not have a clearer description from the Lord God himself that Israelite babies were baptized immediately upon birth, and that this "washing" and "anointing" distinguished them from the pagans. No one in their right mind "waited" to do adult baptism.]
5. No one looked on you with pity or compassion to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out on the ground as something loathsome the day you were born.
[My comment. Gosh, isn't that clear? God is not saying that it's good hygiene to give a good scrub a dub to a newborn baby. He is stating that if the baby is not cut in navel, "washed, anointed and rubbed" followed by swaddling, then he is treated as if he is garbage and an abomination. In other words, the baby that is not "baptized" is left by negligent parents to be considered garbage and not an Israelite.]
The next three lines of scripture relates how this un-baptized infant would be left weltering in its own blood, living wild in the field, naked until adulthood, at which point the Lord rescues through love the child that has grown outside the community as an adult. This is both a metaphor and literal description. The Lord now describes in theory doing to the adult what should have been done as a newborn Israelite. So here the Lord is not describing a literal "if you missed your birth baptism by your parents you can get an adult baptism from me." The Lord is describing the literal infant "washing, anointing, rubbing and swaddling" that all, even these fallen away, Jewish infants would have received. He is being symbolic in describing what comes next as to how he can claim for his own through an adult washing, anointing and "clothing."
8. Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of my cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord God. 9. Then I bathed you with water, washed away your blood, and anointed you with oil. 10. I clothed you with an embroidered gown, put sandals of fine leather on your feet; I gave you a fine linen sash and silk robes to wear.
You see, while the Lord God is speaking of how Israel has fallen away as a whole into idolatry, God is using a literal description of the accepted rites of the time. Thus we have definitive proof in the words of the Lord God himself that during the time of Ezechiel (the exile to Babylon with one specific date in Ezechiel identified as being in the year 593 B.C.) the Israelites baptized their babies on birth simultaneously after the cutting of the navel cord. It is not a simple washing up of the baby because the word "anointing" is used, and swaddling clothes are given to the baby after being born of the water, anointed and rubbed with salt. This was a baptism ritual that identified the baby as being an Israelite. Those who "missed the chance" and grew up as a pagan (unbaptized) have a chance to be baptized as an adult by grace (not merit) of God's love for the unbaptized person. This extensive detailed passage, while not intended as a baptismal instruction, could not be clearer.
The Lord God specifies the lack of baptism of the newborn child as the means by which he insults the fallen away audience of Ezechiel's scolding. God does not have Ezechiel rip into them by mentioning their unholy and pagan practices and lapses in adult faith. He used the analogy of the baptism of the newborn baby into the Israelite community as the way to characterize their lack of obedience, saying "You act as though you were never baptized as an Israelite as a baby."
I really don't know how any "Christian" can criticize Catholics for practicing infant baptism since that is clearly the distinguishing ritual of the newborn Israelite baby specifically documented here as early as six hundred years before Christ was born! That's "where St. John the Baptist got the idea from." St. John the Baptist was recognizing that the people had again fallen away, even as they were continuing to baptize infants they were not living as consecrated-to-God Israelites. Hence St. John the Baptist started a ritual of adult baptism to REMIND people of the baptism they had received as the newborn infant and what it meant. St. John the Baptist was NOT "inventing adult baptism." All Jewish babies, including Jesus, would have had their navel cord cut and then immediately be brought into the community (baptized) by being "washed" "anointed" "rubbed" and "swaddled." Remember when Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why do you think that was important enough to mention in the Gospel? The angel appears and declares to the shepherds:
Luke 2: 12
And this shall be a sign to you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
Why would an angel mention the swaddling clothes? Because the swaddling clothes indicated a Jewish newborn infant, not a pagan newborn infant. Mary would have cut his cord, washed, anointed and rubbed him with salt first and then swaddled him. Jesus, in other words, would have been "baptized" by his parents at birth just as all the other Jewish infants were, as God himself states in Ezechiel, for the centuries before to distinguish themselves from the pagans and that they are through, yes, call it what it is, this "sacrament," being "baptized" into the community of Israelites FROM BIRTH.
I really was shocked and discouraged when I realized that there is such poor Biblical scholarship (usually among those who proclaim it loudest) that God's own explicit words on this subject are not noticed.
I hope this helps. Gosh, reading the Bible accurately cannot hurt can it? Only false accusations and ignorance hurt. Folks ought to be grateful to the Catholics; we even keep the swaddling "new clothes" through the christening gown!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
