Kelly Clark asks us to consider the following excerpt from an article on an interfaith website:
For interfaith couples who have chosen to raise their children within Judaism, problems with regard to not baptizing their children arise because traditions do not die easily. It would not be uncommon, for example, to have a relative, perhaps a grandmother or grandfather, who might be very upset that the baby is not baptized.
You might expect that from the rabbi in whose religion the children are being raised. You probably wouldn’t expect it from the Catholic priest whose “traditions” are being rejected, traditions which he blithely waves away to “die easily.”
And that Catholic priest? Fr. Walter Cuenin.
“the theology of the church has changed”?
“one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”
From the CCC 977
Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”521 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that “we too might walk in newness of life.”
It is really so important for us to know our faith “for ourselves”, and not rely upon only interpretations from the pulpit.
Remember, Judas was one of the 12, and 1/3 of all angels were cast out of heaven.
“Doctrine has changed dramatically since they were young, however, and we now teach that God saves all peoples, not only Christians.”
I must have missed that line in Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus.
Never mind. Joe Soucy beat me to the punch.
Fr. Cuenin clearly has been reading too much Rahner and Haight and not enough Catechism.
I just wanted to make a thought I had clear:
The priest in mention here is not alone. There are a good percentage of priest who disagree with the teachings of the Church, and who preach these from the pulpit with letting the congregation know they are in disagreement.
Hence, the unlearned, believe that what proceeds from their mouths are the beliefs of the Church. Since they know very little else.
No wonder, the Church which is accused of sheltering people from the truth of the Bible, really encourages the reading of Holy Scripture, along with the Catechism, to help the faithful recognize heredoxy (sp?) and apostacy when it is present.
I thought one of the conditions of infant Baptism is that the kids will be raised in the faith?
“the meaning of baptism has also shifted. It is seen today primarily as an entrance ritual for those entering the community of Christian faith”
This makes baptism sound about as significant as a tea ceremony. He says nothing about the sacramental graces, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the membership in the Body of Christ. Instead of the teachings of the Church that would foster a deeper understanding of baptism he adds this:
“…ancient customs and traditions can rise like ghosts from some deep place to haunt and disturb a good marriage”
Baptism is a spook that we need to lay to rest so we can get a good night’s sleep, happily forgetting all our worries?
“Hence, the unlearned, believe that what proceeds from their mouths are the beliefs of the Church.”
Exactly.
This is an assumption most regular folk make, right or wrong.
Which is why the bishops need to make an example of this guy and end the tolerance of heresy in every diocese, right now.
Baptism is a tea ceremony as it is done nowadays. No emphasis on washing away original sin and 100% emphasis on “welcoming into the community.”
Universal Salvation is straight AmChurch orthodoxy which is rampant.
No Bishops care about this anymore. Fr. Cuenin is being punished over financial stuff, no Bishop would dare question the Baptismal tea ceremonies or universal salvation, that is restricted to St. Blog’s parish.
My daughter was born in 1978, and my husband and I attended baptism class, taught by a woman, before her birth. When we were finished with it, we both gave serious thought to skipping the sacrament altogether, because as it was presented to us, it didn’t remotely resemble what we had been taught was the meaning of the sacrament when we were in parochial school.
In other words, we got the tea party without the saving grace. I wasn’t sure I wanted to raise a child in the tea party church. Ultimately we caved in, though, and went through with the baptism, mostly because we still believed what we had been taught in grade school.
I couldn’t accept the theology we had been given, and I didn’t see how to superimpose the theology of original sin over what I assumed at the time was correct Catholic theology for the modern Catholic, so my prayer at her baptism was a giving up to God of my rights over her, using as a model the Presentation in the Temple. It became the theme of my parenthood—she was God’s child on loan to me and I had a responsibility to raise her as God would wish because I gave her to Him. It turned out to be a positive development out of tea party theology. All things work together for good…
because as it was presented to us, it didn’t remotely resemble what we had been taught was the meaning of the sacrament when we were in parochial school.
It is at this point that Roman Catholic parents consider doing it themselves in the kitchen sink.
This is a valid “battlefield” baptism and I was ready to do it during the birth of my recent most bondle of joy (not that we had any particular dificulties but I was ready anyway.)
And it is a battlefield, and Roman Catholicism is getting badly beaten by AmChurch, a hostile, parasitic imposter.
Dom’s recent thread on butt-skimming Baptisms covers the issue.
Remember folks, what we are discussing here is the Roman Catholic Church in North America and Europe.
Africa and other places seem to be doing quite well with there Othodoxy. Their priests seem to be well formed.
This is not a problem with the Universal Catholic Church, only a regional issue.
FYI. We went to a vocation directors training class this morning, with three young priest and two older priests. All seemed to be well formed to me.