Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Even a busted clock is right twice a day....
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 2:38PM #1
GRobit625
Posts: 1,976
For once during her time in the episcopate, she finally does her job as a guardian of the faith. I can't believe I'm saying this, but bravo Bishop Schori!


www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/presiding_bis...


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 7:47PM #2
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

"I would much rather see us have 'on-call' baptisms in the expectation that a person will be nurtured by the community in his or her faith..."


What is she saying?  That the priest should baptize somebody at the rail and then give him communion?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 9:54PM #3
LitanyoftheSaints
Posts: 1,223

Count me in, Jim, also as one who is confused by her response. What's an "on call" baptism? And if we know an unbaptized person is receiving communion, then........what? I don't get it.


 Those who are sticklers for the communion being for "members only" are going to interpret it as a statement  in their favor. 

"The centrality of our mission is to love each other. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine."- ++KJS
http://kjsfanpage.blogspot.com/
http://chicksinpointyhats.blogspot.com/

"We are to be Christ's hands and feet and heart and mind and we cannot do that if we assume God's role of judgment. The judge's job is filled. God alone is judge! Those who would be Saviors of the Church and the people in it are also reminded that the Savior's job has been filled. Jesus Christ filled it once for all. "- Bishop Rodney Michel
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 10:20PM #4
GRobit625
Posts: 1,976

May 20, 2012 -- 9:54PM, LitanyoftheSaints wrote:


Count me in, Jim, also as one who is confused by her response. What's an "on call" baptism? And if we know an unbaptized person is receiving communion, then........what? I don't get it.


 Those who are sticklers for the communion being for "members only" are going to interpret it as a statement  in their favor. 





Did you listen to what she said? And it's far from a "members only" type of thing. Please don't dismiss it as such.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 10:44PM #5
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

GRobit, Please explain what she said must be done about the unbaptized person who goes to the rail to get communion, and when does he get baptized. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 10:50PM #6
GRobit625
Posts: 1,976

May 20, 2012 -- 10:44PM, JimRigas wrote:


GRobit, Please explain what she said must be done about the unbaptized person who goes to the rail to get communion, and when does he get baptized. 





Jim, with all honesty, I'm not sure about what she said about on-call baptism and exactly what that tells. What I'm guessing is that she is all for the priest announcing that anyone who wishes baptism can receive it on the spot, without attending catechsim classes. I'm not exactly for this either. The only thing I agree with is when she said that baptism is still needed before approaching for the Eucharist and that those two sacraments can't be seperated. Remember, I did say that the clock was busted,lol.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 11:03PM #7
LitanyoftheSaints
Posts: 1,223

May 20, 2012 -- 10:20PM, GRobit625 wrote:


May 20, 2012 -- 9:54PM, LitanyoftheSaints wrote:


Count me in, Jim, also as one who is confused by her response. What's an "on call" baptism? And if we know an unbaptized person is receiving communion, then........what? I don't get it.


 Those who are sticklers for the communion being for "members only" are going to interpret it as a statement  in their favor. 





Did you listen to what she said? And it's far from a "members only" type of thing. Please don't dismiss it as such.




Yes, I listened twice, and  I have the same questions.


I've seen similar reactions in various forums to what she said, those who normally opposed to her are now making left-handed compliments like, Oh for once she gets it right! or She's finally acting like  a bishop!, etc. They can't just simply say, I agree. They have to get that jab in. Whatever.



Those who wish that only baptized members take communion do not  want any unbaptized persons to take communion. How is this not a "members only" thing?

"The centrality of our mission is to love each other. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine."- ++KJS
http://kjsfanpage.blogspot.com/
http://chicksinpointyhats.blogspot.com/

"We are to be Christ's hands and feet and heart and mind and we cannot do that if we assume God's role of judgment. The judge's job is filled. God alone is judge! Those who would be Saviors of the Church and the people in it are also reminded that the Savior's job has been filled. Jesus Christ filled it once for all. "- Bishop Rodney Michel
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 20, 2012 - 11:14PM #8
GRobit625
Posts: 1,976

May 20, 2012 -- 11:03PM, LitanyoftheSaints wrote:


May 20, 2012 -- 10:20PM, GRobit625 wrote:


May 20, 2012 -- 9:54PM, LitanyoftheSaints wrote:


Count me in, Jim, also as one who is confused by her response. What's an "on call" baptism? And if we know an unbaptized person is receiving communion, then........what? I don't get it.


 Those who are sticklers for the communion being for "members only" are going to interpret it as a statement  in their favor. 





Did you listen to what she said? And it's far from a "members only" type of thing. Please don't dismiss it as such.




Yes, I listened twice, and  I have the same questions.


I've seen similar reactions in various forums to what she said, those who normally opposed to her are now making left-handed compliments like, Oh for once she gets it right! or She's finally acting like  a bishop!, etc. They can't just simply say, I agree. They have to get that jab in. Whatever.



Those who wish that only baptized members take communion do not  want any unbaptized persons to take communion. How is this not a "members only" thing?





Why does it bother you so much that people make comments? People make comments about people in positions of arthority all the time. Bishop Schori is no different. I'm sure those random comments don't bother her. Tomorrow she's going to wake up and still be the PB. Not everyone is going to be liked.



It's not exactly as simple as you're trying to make it. We're talking about the sacraments here. The word "sacrament" is a verbal linkage to the word "sacred." And the sacraments, all of them, are sacred. One does not survive without the other.  One should have an understanding of what and whom we are taken in when we partake of Christ. This is why we have catechism courses for new baptismal candidates to understand just what journey they are embarking on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 8:56AM #9
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,954

Keeping in mind that the PB was not speaking "Ex Cathedra", I think she was opening a dialogue on a subject that has a good deal more discussion ahead. She articulated what would be considered the orthodox/traditional/historical position. However, as she pointed out, the new prayer book, with weekly Eucharist, is causing change.


I'm guessing this change will continue inspite of the PB's desire to maintain the linkage between Baptism and Communion.

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 9:24AM #10
Dutch777
Posts: 9,116

 


[/quote]



Why does it bother you so much that people make comments? People make comments about people in positions of arthority all the time. Bishop Schori is no different. I'm sure those random comments don't bother her. Tomorrow she's going to wake up and still be the PB. Not everyone is going to be liked.



It's not exactly as simple as you're trying to make it. We're talking about the sacraments here. The word "sacrament" is a verbal linkage to the word "sacred." And the sacraments, all of them, are sacred. One does not survive without the other.  One should have an understanding of what and whom we are taken in when we partake of Christ. This is why we have catechism courses for new baptismal candidates to understand just what journey they are embarking on.


[/quote]


Exactly correct.


Some appear to believe that the baptismal requirement for receiving communion is  appalling hospitality or a violation of civil rights. That's bad sacramental theology.


Baptism is the burial & resurrection sacrament e.g. one dies to one's self and is resurrected "in Christ".  The Holy Eucharist is "spiritual nourishment of the resurrected Disciple in Christ".  This is the normative and rich symbolic sequence.  No-one is "entitled" to the Holy Eucharist just by being present in church. 


The sacraments are the precious patrimony and charge of the Church; they're not a "civil right" or "entitlement" for the non-baptized.  All are welcomed to the enquirers' class and may become candidates for baptism; we not a "closed shop".  I'm really put-off by people who walk into church with a "$<--- you" attitude towards nearly 2 Millenia of sacred tradition.  They're confusing church with the local  burger joint.


Let's remember this: Jesus didn't invite all & sundry to the Last Supper.  He invited only His closest Disciples. 

The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook