Thousands of baptisms invalidated by priest’s use of one wrong word [Click] ‘we baptize you’ instead of ‘I baptize you’ for years. Seems awfully persnikkity to me, especially in view of some other things that have been punished lightly or not at all. They ought to have some sort of group do-over ceremony laying around that could be applied.
Theologically speaking, I think they're crazy to fuss about it. ANY baptised Christian is allowed to baptise someone. It's not as if it has to be a priest. Besides, he was right there doing the deed. Pretty obvious. I trust God "got it."
So, I just read the article and now I think the fussing is even more ridiculous! The "I" is supposed to mean Christ and not the priest? If so, doesn't "We" say it better, given that it's the priest's hands doing the baptising. And, wait for it, are they saying Christ baptised Christ?
Then! The height of foolishness: they're trying to say it may invalidate various weddings and ordinations if someone who was "improperly" baptised later was wed or ordained? I can feel the breeze from God shaking God's head.
Actually, I think they are incorrect to say that Christ does the baptising! A person is baptised "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" ~ there's another really great "We." Whatever entity is saying it's Christ doing the baptising is absolutely WRONG. And I say this having not only taught baptism classes (in the Catholic Church!) but as one who has actually done an emergency baptism in an Emergency Room. Add in a bunch of seminary classes...
And why should it be necessary to use a personal pronoun at all? I suppose there are languages that don't. Even in a language like English that uses explicit subjects and pronouns, one could phrase it "You are baptized." It could even be something analogous to "Baptism accomplished." If I may be permitted a bit of cynicism, it appears to be a pseudomagical ceremony, which could certainly be patched up with another pseudomagical ceremony. And consider the various Christian denominations that reject infant baptism.
Well, we have the weeds dealt with in the front yard and on both sides of the house. Tomorrow or the next day we will plant gladioli in the front yard (in the back yard the gophers regard them as a snack bar), and then on to the back yard weeds next week.
Their progress from the back yard to the front would be impeded by concrete in some places, and hardpan in others, with no munchables for at least fifty feet, and the same for neighboring properties.
Renters across US face sharp increases – averaging up to 40% in some cities [Click]
ReplyDeleteAt the same time Gallup reports Satisfaction With Own Life Five Times Higher Than With U.S. [Click] At first glance this doesn’t seem to compute.
Donald Trump’s legal woes threaten to engulf him as accountants abandon ship [Click] “Mazars’ cutting ties with ex-president mark significant step in New York investigation of his financial affairs, among 19 current cases”
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThousands of baptisms invalidated by priest’s use of one wrong word [Click] ‘we baptize you’ instead of ‘I baptize you’ for years. Seems awfully persnikkity to me, especially in view of some other things that have been punished lightly or not at all. They ought to have some sort of group do-over ceremony laying around that could be applied.
Theologically speaking, I think they're crazy to fuss about it. ANY baptised Christian is allowed to baptise someone. It's not as if it has to be a priest. Besides, he was right there doing the deed. Pretty obvious. I trust God "got it."
DeleteSo, I just read the article and now I think the fussing is even more ridiculous! The "I" is supposed to mean Christ and not the priest? If so, doesn't "We" say it better, given that it's the priest's hands doing the baptising. And, wait for it, are they saying Christ baptised Christ?
DeleteThen! The height of foolishness: they're trying to say it may invalidate various weddings and ordinations if someone who was "improperly" baptised later was wed or ordained? I can feel the breeze from God shaking God's head.
Actually, I think they are incorrect to say that Christ does the baptising! A person is baptised "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" ~ there's another really great "We." Whatever entity is saying it's Christ doing the baptising is absolutely WRONG. And I say this having not only taught baptism classes (in the Catholic Church!) but as one who has actually done an emergency baptism in an Emergency Room. Add in a bunch of seminary classes...
DeleteAnd why should it be necessary to use a personal pronoun at all? I suppose there are languages that don't. Even in a language like English that uses explicit subjects and pronouns, one could phrase it "You are baptized." It could even be something analogous to "Baptism accomplished." If I may be permitted a bit of cynicism, it appears to be a pseudomagical ceremony, which could certainly be patched up with another pseudomagical ceremony. And consider the various Christian denominations that reject infant baptism.
DeleteWhy the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling [Click] “There is an air of desperation in attacks from those on the right and their supporters in the press. They fear if Johnson falls, the Brexit deception will crumble too.” Hmmmm. . . might this be an augury for the US?
ReplyDeleteOne can hope!!
DeleteWell, we have the weeds dealt with in the front yard and on both sides of the house. Tomorrow or the next day we will plant gladioli in the front yard (in the back yard the gophers regard them as a snack bar), and then on to the back yard weeds next week.
ReplyDeleteWhat well-behaved gophers that only snack in the back yard!
DeleteTheir progress from the back yard to the front would be impeded by concrete in some places, and hardpan in others, with no munchables for at least fifty feet, and the same for neighboring properties.
Delete