The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

[Continued]
So, for some of us, then, the NT is not and cannot be the sole arbiter of matters of faith and practice. Indeed, that was the case with the Church in the first few centuries of its existence; in fact in many ways they were worse off than us in that respect. For the first seventy years or so, the entirety of the NT had not yet been written, and the Church did not decide upon or recognise all of the 27 books we have today until the end of the 4th century. Up until then, therefore, Christians had to have some other method of determining the truth of the New Covenant. The key to that other method is the record of what the Church has done and said – its practice in other words; the other reason some of us do what we do, in addition to the NT, is because our ‘spiritual ancestors’, as it were, did it, and so did their spiritual ancestors, right back to the earliest existence of the Church, ‘handed down’ (traditio) from generation to generation and, more often than not, recorded by the ECFs. What these early Christians did and thought was shaped not just by what they were able to read in the pages of the NT to which they had access, but also in reflecting how the truths (to which the Scriptures testify) were lived out in the worshipping communities from the beginning in it's liturgical life of prayer, hymns, catechesis, rule of faith, baptismal confessions, etc. ('Lex orandi, Lex credendi'--"the rule of prayer is the rule of belief"). For instance, the Church in the 4th century knew that the doctrine known as Arianism - the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being, inferior to God the Father and thus not God Himself - was wrong because it taught a different "Christ"--ie, a creature--from the One she had been worshipping and praying to from the beginning as God; this was despite the fact that the author of this heresy, Arius, could justify his position based on an appeal to sola Scriptura. Those who disregarded this ecclesial context/understanding, read the Scriptures differently and thus came to a different conclusion from Arius.

 

FYI Matt I spoke with my family and the baptism may be invalid depending on how the water was used.

 

Can you elaborate...you mean how the water was used, in regard to the Trinitarian formula or the method of how the water was applied?

In XC
-

 

Water should be in motion. "living water". so poured in while in the trinitarian formula. If their was something like an "anointing with water" its not valid. From this perspective however, I'm not sure how baptist total immersion is acceptable but its valid non-the-less.

 

Thanks Matt for this post...anybody really can make a new doctrine from Holy Scripture and claim sola Scriptura...and Arius did just that and made a pretty darn good argument from Holy Scripture, but the Church never accepted such heresy, because as your article points out...this isn't what was taught from the very beginning...this wasn't the consensus of the Church as a whole...Holy Tradition...

In XC
-

 

Jesus wasn't in error...you are If baptism is necessary, grace if voided.

 

That's a new one to me, water in motion, that is...as I spent 8 months in Roman Catholic RCIA...could be we just never discussed this in any detail, but interesting.

and it's interesting also that the Orthodox Church practices Baptism by total immersion too, only we immerse the person three (3) times (in the name of the Father [dunk], and of the Son [dunk] and of the Holy Spirit [dunk])...and speaking of "living water"...water in motion...the water is defiantly in motion as the person is being immersed and raised out of the water...

in XC
-

 

Yeah, I guess that's true. So long as you have water in motion even in our baptismal when someone is immersed and brought out water is in motion. Catholics pour for that reason though. Do Orthodox baptise babies as well? And how do they do that?

 

Yes we do. 40 days after the birth, the child is "churched", just as Christ as a baby was presented in the Temple...shortly there after the baby is baptized and receives Holy Communion too.

They're immersed like everyone else...three times...LOL...some cry and some seem to actually enjoy it.

In XC
-

 

You immerse a child that young? Wow. Isn't that dangerous? And to think three times? And they receive Communion and they haven't been weaned yet? Is it the crumbs (from the Prosphoro) that are placed on the outer part of the plate or Diskos Patten?

 

Care to elaborate? The only circumstances I can envisage are where it is a 'non-emergency' baptism and 'dirty' water is used (in an emergency, any kind of water can be used by anyone with the necessary intent eg: water from a puddle, even saliva(!) but in a non-emergency situation, that won't do) but I somehow can't imagine Presbies using dirty stuff to baptise...

 

Not correct; it's an out-of-context quote from the Didache I suspect, where 'living water'='running water' ie: a stream or river. If taken literally, that would rule out water in a font or baptistry. My priestly uncle baptised both our children in a bath (by immersion not effusion) which obviously contained still water.

 

Note post 64. Other than than there must have been something wrong with the trinitarian formula. BTW What's up with the presbyterians? I hear some of their preachers now deny the virgin birth and the resurrection.

 

DHK and I discussed that a little bit and we both agree water is in motion for immersion.

 

I think Jesus' words are pretty clear - water is a means of being born anothen (it's up to you whether you want to translate that as 'from above' or 'again'). And, far from voiding grace, it is a means of grace - for infants, it is ultimate grace since the infant has no means of possessing saving faith and is unable to assent to his or her baptism yet God gratuitously offers grace (yes, I know that's tautologous!) through the waters of baptism.

 

No, some people have birth's underwater...some babies are even taking swim lessons (if you even wanna call it that) at that age...ever seen the cover of Nirvana's "nevermind" CD...lol...Our Church has been around since the late 1800's and we've never lost a baby by drowning...lol

It's really not a s bad as you think, there's a method to it and it's over with before you know it...it's not like we hold them underwater, it's very quick.

They approach the chalice with their god-parent or parent just like everyone else..they take from the same spoon as everyone else...although their portion is very little at that age, it's just a little inside the mouth and that's it...it's not the same amount as I would get or my 4 year-old would get.

In XC
-

 

How do you get it in the baby's mouth? Wouldn the Godparent or parent have to touch the Prosphoro to put it in the baby's inside cheek and isn't that bad?

 

well all of my kids are older (4, 5 and 8) and I'm not a godparent or really ever witnessed a baby taking communion...only that I know no one touches the elements...I guess the mother can rub her finger on the baby's bottom lip and as a natural reflect the baby's mouth will open (just like you would if you were feeding a baby...)...IF the baby or even toddler for that matter is uncooperative, then obvious they won't get communion...it's not btw, forced on them.

And again, it's such a small amount anyway...the priest will find a small itty bitty piece of bread, if that.

No one touches the elements, if some drip or fall on the napkin OR a toddler spits it back out (which happens...my daughter has done it before!) the priest will eat it from the napkin...and yes, even if it falls to the floor, it's wiped up and consumed. Some Churches in Eastern Europe have visible burn marks on the floor, where after they burn the area (don't ask me why...they just do it).

In XC
-

 

Makes me glad I'm not an Orthodox Priest!

 

Why do you think they have the beards?