A conversation about unity.

[ARBITER01]

This thread has not been one of Christian love, but of polemic anger and hatred for fellow Christians.

I think it's been a moment of truth.

 

[Hentenza]

I think it's been a moment of truth.

I doubt it. You, Mark, and me have been here long enough to have seen this bad play repeat over and over.

 

[ARBITER01]

I doubt it. You, Mark, and me have been here long enough to have seen this bad play repeat over and over.

True.

Our focus is to be upon Jesus, not any denomination or church building, but some folks haven't realized that yet.

 

[Strong in Him]

You put a hypothetical and that isn't a point.

My point was that IF baptism were required for salvation, anyone who became a Christian but died before they could be baptised would, according to you, not be saved.
I don't believe that would be the case.

I'm not denying baptism is a good thing, nor saying that no one needs to be baptised.

But if it were required for salvation, people who received Christ on their death beds, or on death row, or who became Christians but unexpectedly died before they could even find a church, never mind request baptism, would not be saved. People in other countries who might become Christians but only be baptised sometime later, would only be saved at the point of their baptism.
Either God would say, "you're not baptised; this is required for salvation, you're out". Or "you're not baptised, this is required for salvation but I'll make an exception because you didn't know you were going to die."

I am not saying that but you are.

Read my post again. I asked, "ARE you saying that .......?" It was a question. I want to know if you believe that someone who received and confessed Christ but who died before they could be baptised, would be condemned?

You have some crazy ideas about what Catholic teach.

Read my post again - I said nothing about what Catholics teach.
I was, and am, asking you to clarify if a new Christian who confessed Jesus, had not been baptised and died before they could undergo baptism, would be condemned.

My point is that Jesus saves and Jesus is enough.
Yes, baptism is great and important. But if a new Christian were to die unbaptised, it doesn't mean they were not saved.

 

[Carl Emerson]

A question no one has raised is the issue of so called 'Apostolic succession' as if it is a requirement for authenticity - when Paul was called and established with no laying-on of hands.

We note that human agent commanded to restore him from blindness, and lead him to baptism was called to Ananias, and described as a disciple not an Apostle.

We know that God can raise up believers from the very stones (Luke 3) likewise Apostles as He did with Paul.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I notice with a wry smile that I have raised several issues on this topic that have been avoided and the silence is somewhat significant.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A question no one has raised is the issue of so called 'Apostolic succession' as if it is a requirement for authenticity - when Paul was called and established with no laying-on of hands.

Acts 9:17 records that Ananias laid hands on Saul (Paul) after his Damascus Road conversion.
Acts 13:3 describes the Church at Antioch laying hands on Paul and Barnabas before sending them on mission

We note that human agent commanded to restore him from blindness, and lead him to baptism was called to Ananias, and described as a disciple not an Apostle.

We know that God can raise up believers from the very stones (Luke 3) likewise Apostles as He did with Paul.

 

[The Liturgist]

My brother in Christ, citing general scripture without comment or exegesis as a defense does not in any way help you debunk what the previous poster was promoting. Please be specific and I will be happy to engage.

It is a valid when the entirety of the books in question contradicts the position being taken, which itself was not argued from a specific Scriptural verse, so it was not even eisgesis.

And there is the Nicene Creed and the other creeds as well, in which we confess a belief in the one Holy Catholic (universal, according to the whole) and Apostolic Church and one Baptism for the remission of sins, and there are the liturgical texts themselves.

I also have qualms about the weaponization of Scriptural verses. I think going forward I’m going to encourage liturgical Christians to not cite verses but to cite pericopes from one of the publicly available lectionaries such as those in the Book of Common Prayer, the Orthodox liturgies, the Roman and Lutheran missals, the Methodist Book of Worship and even the Revised Common Lectionary, since the beauty of the lectionary system is it puts scripture in context and prevents out of context eisegesis.

I do appreciate you calling me a brother however, as it shows good will on your part.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, not yet, we are searching for him, and are as ready as we will ever be. While we just don't use Holy Water, it is used in our Exorcism rite; it's preparation is also clearly instructed within the rite; as is the use of Holy images, incense, and particularly prayer.

Are the laity in your parish opposed to holy water fonts? Because I have seen those in Lutheran churches. I would note the Orthodox usually don’t use fonts except for baptism, rather, laity receiving Holy Water receive it in a container and it is treated as a holy thing. This also avoids sanitary issues, since unlike the Eucharist, Holy Water can be contaminated.

 

[The Liturgist]

A person could become a Christian but die before they can be baptised, or receive communion. They would still be saved.

That is called the Baptism of Desire, or in the case of the Baptism of Blood. It is inadvisable to delay baptism relying on that, especially for an adult (I don’t believe children will be penalized by their parents refusing to baptize them due to the errors of the Credobaptist movement opposed by our friends @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis and @Jipsah with such eloquence, but for an adult to delay baptism seems to contradict the Nicene Creed. Even the Quakers who did not engage in physical baptism believed they were being baptized spiritually and connected it to an ecclesiastical context.

Intentionally avoiding baptism or delaying it was a common vice in the early church due to a belief that one would not be forgiven for sins committed after baptism, which even affected Emperor Constantine, but it is clearly wrong, and it is rejected now for the same reason it was rejected then.

The person who has not received Baptism has not received the sacramental grace and has not been born again of water and the spirit. Baptism enables one to safely partake of the Eucharist and will also remove any demons that might be oppressing someone (in a liturgical church at least, since we include a prayer of exorcism in the liturgy).

I would also note that baptism like the Eucharist is extremely enjoyable, and is an example not of an unpleasant ritual but of Christ dispensing his grace to us in a way that gives us pleasure now and delivers us from death in the future. The sacraments, when done properly, are not drab rituals but are means of accessing a joy that is beyond description.

In my childhood, I was blessed to receive the Eucharist for the first time around age four (had I been an Orthodox I would have received it from infancy). I remember being amazed by how delicious it was I attempted at home to recreate the taste using the exact same bread and juice without success. I later discovered that even in rites where the Eucharist is formulated with slightly different matter, for example unleavened bread in the case of the Roman church or in the case of the Orthodox, our liturgical rites which usually use fermented bread except for the Armenian Apostolic Church among the Orientals, the surreal taste is still the same - it is because I am not consuming ordinary bread and wine, but the very Body and Blood of Christ our God.

Thus, what I don’t understand about the anti-sacramental position is why people would object to doing what is both scripturally commanded by Christ of all Christians in the case of Baptism and the Eucharist (with limited exceptions for those unable to be baptized before dying, for example of martyrdom), and which is at least in the liturgical churches, extremely pleasurable.

What is the logic of “Oh, let’s not spend an hour or two listening to the most beautiful music with the most beautiful words ever written before experiencing pleasure given by God as a gift directly analogous to the nuptial bliss of Holy Matrimony”? It baffles me that anyone would wish to deprive themselves from that.

 

[The Liturgist]

Where does scripture endorse separate exclusive communions?

Obviously it doesn’t, which is why I reccommend everyone attend one of the liturgical churches, of which there are a great many - the Anglicans, Antiochians, Armenians, Assyrians, Byzantines, Chaldeans, liturgical Congregationalists, Copts, Episcopalians, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Georgians, Greeks, Indians, Japanese Orthodox, Lutherans, Maronites, Mar Thoma Christians (Nasranis) Moravians, Norwegian Catholics, Polish Catholics, Reformed Catholics, Roman Catholics, Russians, Suroye, Traditional Methodists, Ukrainians, et cetera… there’s probably one for every letter of the alphabet, but these churches are in the process of reunification, whereas other denominations are moving further away from each other.

There has been a huge increase, for example, in polemics between altturgical Calvinists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Restorationists, Pentecostals and non-Denominational churches over a number of issues, even as the liturgical churches are uniting. Whereas almost all polemics directed at the liturgical churches from without involve attacks on the Roman Catholics and are predicated on a false dichotomy between Catholics and non-Catholics, which ignores the Orthodox and the liturgical Protestants and ignores the real harm it inflicts on our communities, for example the unwarranted allegation of idolatry.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for answering in good faith.

I was baptized, for the first time, earlier this year. I had to sit down with the elder of the church, beforehand, so that he could instruct me on the reasons for baptism and make sure I understood it as it pertained to scripture etc so I appreciate your response and honesty.

Have a great weekend

God grant you many years.

 

[The Liturgist]

If baptism is what regenerates then why does the rest of the chapter including the famous 16th verse does not include it?

Because it was already mentioned.

If I may ask what is your familiarity with Patristic commentaries on the Gospel of John? Specifically which ones have you read?

Also have you read any catechisms that explain this sacrament, such as the one in the Book of Common Prayer or the Lutheran Catechism or any of the Orthodox catechisms? Or the CCC. Or any baptismal liturgies?*

* The Apostles’ Creed is actually a hymn from the ancient form of the Roman baptismal liturgy, which is probably why we don’t use it in the Eastern church, not because we disagree with it, rather it is simply a matter of liturgical diversity - it is a Western Rite hymn, one of many beautiful Western hymns that are not a major part of Eastern worship and vice versa, but we have equivalent hymns. Due to severe problems with heresy the Nicene Creed is the main creedal hymn and is complemented by others such as Ho Monogenes.

It is interesting to consider all of the ancient creedal material, even the Nicene Creed, were actually written as, and have traditionally been used as, hymns. There are so many lovely settings of the Nicene Creed; indeed about 45 minutes of Bach’s Mass in B Minor is just the Creed. In the Slavonic liturgy the Creed is referred to as “Octe nash” in roman characters.

 

[The Liturgist]

I notice with a wry smile that I have raised several issues on this topic that have been avoided and the silence is somewhat significant.

If you have any remaining questions I would be happy to walk you through them in a non-polemical context on the basis of our personal friendship, as I continue to welcome your prayers and to reciprocate them and I love you very much, and your son, and the work he is doing in the Anglican Church of New Zealand. I regret we were unable to speak a few weeks ago but I have been in a precarious health situation that has interfered with a great deal, but through the grace of the Holy Spirit I am recovering.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Acts 9:17 records that Ananias laid hands on Saul (Paul) after his Damascus Road conversion.
Acts 13:3 describes the Church at Antioch laying hands on Paul and Barnabas before sending them on mission

You miss the point - Apostolic succession passes on the Apostolic anointing from an Apostle to the candidate.

In the case of Paul this did not happen - we have it on record that He served as an Apostle and planted churches well before he met with them - in fact they accepted His ministry and he was emphatic that he did not derive his status from them. Read Galatians 1

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you have any remaining questions I would be happy to walk you through them in a non-polemical context on the basis of our personal friendship, as I continue to welcome your prayers and to reciprocate them and I love you very much, and your son, and the work he is doing in the Anglican Church of New Zealand. I regret we were unable to speak a few weeks ago but I have been in a precarious health situation that has interfered with a great deal, but through the grace of the Holy Spirit I am recovering.

Dear friend you are making a good job of trying to keep the thread together in the hope that fruit might ensue.

I am off to church now but will raise issues again later.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Are the laity in your parish opposed to holy water fonts? Because I have seen those in Lutheran churches. I would note the Orthodox usually don’t use fonts except for baptism, rather, laity receiving Holy Water receive it in a container and it is treated as a holy thing. This also avoids sanitary issues, since unlike the Eucharist, Holy Water can be contaminated.

A former Pastor wanted to move the baptismal font to the rear of the Church, so parishoners could, if they chose to, remember their baptism with it. We got no traction on that whatsoever. Such was deemed too "catlick". LOL However, since that time, we have seen an ever increasing number of members, old and new alike, making the sign of the cross.

So much negative influence in North America from reformed evangelical and pietist Christians as well as Masonic and Orange lodges. German Lutherans and Catholics were in a minority in this part of Upper Canada, being a British Colony. Only in about the last 50 years have we began to see a return to the fulness of our Liturgical heritage.

So much easier in Europe, our Sister Church in Latvia and their new Archbishop:

Baby-steps as they say; someday.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You miss the point - Apostolic succession passes on the Apostolic anointing from an Apostle to the candidate.

Well, no. Apostles are appointed by Jesus Christ, as was the case with the twelve and with saint Paul. That is the point, isn't it?

In the case of Paul this did not happen - we have it on record that He served as an Apostle and planted churches well before he met with them - in fact they accepted His ministry and he was emphatic that he did not derive his status from them. Read Galatians 1

 

[Strong in Him]

Except for Matthias. Who was appointed by the remaining eleven Apostles to replace Judas.

And the word "Apostle" means "sent", so Barnabas was an Apostle, Acts 13:2-3. Junia was outstanding among the Apostles, Romans 16:7.
Jesus was an Apostle, Hebrews 3:1.

 

[The Liturgist]

A former Pastor wanted to move the baptismal font to the rear of the Church, so parishoners could, if they chose to, remember their baptism with it. We got no traction on that whatsoever. Such was deemed too "catlick". LOL However, since that time, we have seen an ever increasing number of members, old and new alike, making the sign of the cross.

So much negative influence in North America from reformed evangelical and pietist Christians as well as Masonic and Orange lodges. German Lutherans and Catholics were in a minority in this part of Upper Canada, being a British Colony. Only in about the last 50 years have we began to see a return to the fulness of our Liturgical heritage.

So much easier in Europe, our Sister Church in Latvia and their new Archbishop:

View attachment 369640

Baby-steps as they say; someday.

Beautiful vesture.

Also, don’t forget the Church of Sweden, unlike the Church of Denmark, always had a high church element connected to Uppsala, and the confessing Mission Province is in that tradition. To a lesser extent Norway and Finland also have had high church elements.

The real problem has been pietists in the parishes, but in Sweden and Norway at least, historically the pietists were sufficiently uncomfortable as to found what is now in North America the EV Free church.

However it looks like the Norwegians went in a more Pietist direction at some point - currently my main hope for Western Rite Christianity in Norway is the Norwegian Catholic Church, an Old Catholic jurisdiction in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church (which unlike the NCC, exists mainly in the US).

In Sweden and Northern Germany I think the future will heavily depend on Christian immigrants of Suroye ethnicity, from the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East. They are making substantial efforts to assimilate into the local culture while preserving the Aramaic language for worship, while completely eliminating Arabic in the case of the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox (their approach in the US as well - the idea is that the youth should know the traditional language of the church and the vernacular language, but not the language foisted upon them by the Saracens - there are to be clear Arabic Christians who have always spoken Arabic, mainly in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Church of Jerusalem (whose territory extends into Jordan), the Church of Sinai (technically a part of the Church of Jordan) and the Melkite Catholic, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches In the area. And Arabic Christianity is extremely beautiful. However it is not the original language of the Suroye (Assyrians and Aramaeans), nor of the Copts or Maronites (who are possibly descended from the Suroye but had a schism with the Syriac Orthodox a long time ago, and migrated to Lebanon and claim a Phoenician ethnicity). The Maronites unfortunately are the only one of the churches I’ve mentioned that was predominantly Syriac Aramaic speaking but which now has no speakers left, but there remains an interest in Aramaic among the Maronite Catholics.