But what if the person being baptized and/or the witnesses believed that the atheist was a Christian? Would the dying person be lost because of the atheist's disbelief?




Perhaps this Priest would be in worse peril than he who apostatized. The latter would be demonstrating an "honest" disagreement with God, which of course would displease the Lord, but the former would by lying to God and misleading his flock.

Have a Blessed Day !!!
John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I have a feeling that it is things such as these that the baker and his customer argued about during the heyday of Constantinople.

Dear John,

Of course, these are all hypothetical cases.

I can't imagine an atheist grabbing hold of running water to baptise someone who is dying . . .

("O.K. Bill, I know you are an agnostic, but I need you to dunk me three times while saying what I'm writing down for you here - let me up quickly after each dunk, I can't swim. . ." ).

There is, of course, the baptism of desire and if someone is preparing for baptism and wants it, their desire results in the grace of Baptism, especially on the point of death.

The Orthodox also believe in "aero-baptism" lifting a child at the point of death three times into the air.

Then there is baptism by blood, the hard way.

What you say about the Priest is doubtless very true.

Then again, with the apostate, it would depend on how "honest" he was when he left the Church and the faith of Christ.

As a priest with all that training, pleading ignorance isn't a good defence.

Ultimately, it's between God and him.

As St Peter Mohyla wrote, even if we see someone die in the state of grave sin, we should pray to God not to punish him for that sin, but to release him from it and receive him into His Kingdom.

Words to live by, I say!

Alex

[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Mikey,

Yes, you are absolutely correct!

People in those days, even fishmongers and potters, read way more theology than we do today.

No television, no videos, no DVD's, no chat forums on the internet - and yet they survived.

They became well-read in theology and topics such as the union of the two Natures of Christ became commonplace in the market.

Nestorius and his denial of the title "Mother of God" was first defeated by the shop-owners and bakers, before it was ever brought before an Ecumenical Council to be voted down by high-ranking Hierarchs.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

This is truly the spice of life: discussing theology with brothers in the Faith. How awesome! Nothing is better and so wholesome in the arena of conversation.

In Christ,


Robert

Here something about the filioque!

according to the SSPX:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__liturgical.htm#removaloffilioque

they still think that the Orthodox teaching is herethical.

For being a somewhat atypical topic for this forum, this topic thread sure has gotten some mileage!

This was discussed on another thread, but the statements of Father Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the SSPX, on many issues in his usual incoherent manner but his particular statements about the Orthodox are especially scary:

http://www.sspx.org/Negotiations/fr_schimdbergers_talk.htm

The following quote from the section "Partial Churches" should put to rest any thoughts that the SSPX is sensitive to Eastern tradition:

..."you cannot compare the Orthodox Church as if it were a true partial Church. That's absurd, because the Orthodox, even if they have a valid Eucharist and a valid priesthood and apostolic succession, they have this apostolic succession only materially, not formally, because they are not linked to the Pope. Moreover, they do not recognize quite a lot of dogmas. For example, their position concerning Purgatory is unclear and confused; they do not accept the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son, nor the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Then, especially, they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope. They are schismatics and even, to a certain point, heretics."

Well, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the West, had difficulty with the Immaculate Conception. And the SSPX is not "linked to the Pope" since their formal excommunication of 1988. The SSPX certainly does not recognize the primacy of the current Pope. Where does that leave them? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Also, I would like for an explanation of the difference between "material" and "formal" apostolic succession. You either have it or you don't have it. Kind of like being a "little pregnant." It's scary to think there are those who rely on and follow this type of theological incompetence by the senior leadership.

Hi Everyone,

I am so happy to see everyone, particularly our eastern brethren pretty much interested and concenrned about the Latins' balancing act with the SSPX traditionalists. This is certainly most unfortunate. No one did stop Archbishop Lefebvre with an excommunication. The past 2 Popes along with the current Bishop of Rome have been dealing with this group firmly but kindly.

It's just so incongruent to see the big banner in their website: "The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the Society pray for His Holiness and the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate. <<< Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Joanne Paulo. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.>>>

On the otherhand, they criticize the Holy Father like a big heretic. This is just so imcomprehensible. How can a son pray for his Father and then curse him in public all the same.

Yes, they may have had some valid points in some cases. And in some, like being a hardliners with items like the FILIOQUE, dealing with Protestants and non-Christians,etc... They are obviously wrong. But certainly, these groups are hardliners, who would NOT bend an ear to the mandate of the Patriarch of Rome.

Rome is trying its best to go down to this group. In fact, though Rome has ordered the implementation of of the Novo Ordo Missae since 1969, it has never outrightly outlawed the Tridentine Mass.

Let us pray for our SSPX brothers and sisters. May they hold their views in the middle instead of being at the "hardline right".

Son of David, have pity on Me!
Antonio Domenico

Dear Friends,

You mean there are some who think the rejection of the Filioque is NOT heretical?

Since when?

Isn't it time this thread be closed?

With all this fascination with the SSPX, pretty soon we'll be thinking of introducing kneeling, mandatory celibacy and the hymerian veil BACK into our Church . . .

Alex

Alex, don't forget Low Masses...er spoken Liturgies, Stations on the walls, statues in our churches and telling the beads for good ole Notre Dame. :p
Don

Dear Don,

So you go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church run by Basilians too?

Alex

Alex, nope...actually, except for not having an iconostasis, my parish is very Ukrainian, orthodox and Orthodox :-) even if my priest is a Celt! I have heard some stories about other places though... Don (the Irish, former vagante priest, Mexican food cooking, sometimes nice guy, rosary making Ukrainian Catholic...did I leave anything out?)

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Don,

You don't have an iconstasis at St. Joseph's??? Egads! Maybe thats why Fr. Bill is slow to get me pictures for your parish's website, which I maintain? That is a travesty not to have one... perhaps you parishioners can but one for him? http://skete.com has small movable ones for a few hundred dollars. God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Nik ]

Dear (Kostel)Nik,

And how has your recent conversion to Russian Orthodoxy impacted your Catholic friends?

How has it impacted your own website, Pozhalusta?

"NotYourCatholic.com?"

"Not loyal to the Magisterium?"

Just wondering . . .

Alex