At What Cost?

In a few more weeks, we will be selecting the persons/administration who will lead our country for the next four years.  This election would not mean anything if we were just selecting people best qualified for the job. However, you and I know that's not the case for this election.
We are, in my opinion, voting for ideals in this election.  For some people, ideals are the cornerstone of their life, for others, ideals are good but not worth fighting for.  Take freedom of religions, for example.  I would fight with my life to be able to practice my faith.  However, my neighbor down the street sees that as a good idea to uphold, but not worth fighting for.
So where does that leave me?  I can see clearly that my religious liberty is being attacked, while my friend sees it as equal access for all.  What is the loving thing to do here?  Do I argue my position in the hope that my friend will agree and we walk down the street singing kumbayah?  Or do I agree to disagree on this matter knowing that I can't change anyone's mind.
What am I willing to risk here?  At what cost am I willing to fight for my beliefs?

On the feast of St. Teresa of Avila.
"Let nothing trouble you, let nothing make you afraid. All things pass away. God never changes. Patience obtains everything. God alone is enough."

4 th Paper

Hey Joyful Sevants,
Peter had a great idea about sharing our papers for Theology and Sacraments class. I'll try to download some past papers. Hope you'll be able to share yours as well.
Peace,
Christopher

Christopher Ciraulo

R 220 Paper #4

Marywood

10/08/2012

·       “During the course of the Christian centuries the ritual of baptism has varied.” “For the theology of baptism is always a variation on the theme of salvation played in different modes and in different keys in different ages.” Joseph Martos: Doors to the Sacred. Pg. 147

·       Pelagius believed that people were born in a state of ‘original grace’ which was the reason for their natural goodness, and that what was lost by Adam was not this grace but a further grace…Children of course were born innocent and so they had no need of baptism.” The New Testament and the early fathers agreed that faith, not just baptism, was needed for salvation.” Joseph Martos: Doors to the Sacred. Pg. 157-158

·       “The introduction to the text as well as the prayers and symbolism of the rite puts less emphasis on washing away original sin and much more on incorporation into the body of Christ…” “Thus the meaning of baptism in contemporary Catholic theology is still salvation, but the meaning of salvation is becoming more experiential and less metaphysical.” Joseph Martos: Doors to the Sacred. Pg. 177, 180

 

The practice of baptism and even to an extent some of its meaning has changed over the course of the centuries. The post Vatican II Church seems to be heading in the direction of incorporating the best of  past meanings and practices and also reexamining the early Church’s and the New Testament’s perspective of baptism.

The Church’s emphasis on being brought into the Body of Christ and less on original sin has, I believe, rediscovered the sacraments intended meaning. The question must be asked: If the Church’s meaning has progressed, can it progress further into a deeper understanding of the truth? Once we have come to embrace the deeper sacramental meaning of baptism could this also eliminate some problems or complications that have developed due to some patristic and medieval interpretations? If the foundation for the meaning of baptism was placed back on incorporating one into the Kingdom of God, (Body of Christ), I think the Church’s celebration of Baptism would be elevated and enlivened and it would also be a substantial expression of those seeking baptism as to their commitment to Christ and the Christian life.

Pelagius may have been right to an extent in promoting original grace. If his view was reexamined by the Church and it was determined that baptism should be reserved for adults who make a conscious decision we may have a more dedicated laity instead of the phenomena of jumping through the hoops to acquire the sacraments and salvation with no apparent commitment or life changing dedication to Christ.

Today, we in the Latin rite have separated the baptismal rite from anointing, (Confirmation). If we reexamined the rite we could again combine baptism with anointing but instead prolong the catechumenate phase. For example, the Rite of Acceptance could be administered to infants bringing them into the Body of Christ and their childhood would be spent receiving instruction in the faith, much like they do for First Communion and Confirmation. Once they near the age when they want to make an informed and committed decision they would go through the Rite of Candidacy then, baptism-anointing and mystagogy. Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation are then celebrated in their proper context as a “beginning” and not as a “graduation” which unfortunately, many believe today.

First Friday Reflection

Here at St. Anne in Seal Beach, the Blessed Sacrament is exposed after the 9 a.m. Mass and ends at 5 p.m. with Benediction.  This "Day of Adoration" occurs every first Friday.

I look forward to this day of adoration because that's my personal retreat day.  I spend my day in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  Granted, I am still working (telecommuting), but I'm blessed that my main office is closed on Fridays (but as anyone in IT will tell you, when the main office is closed, that's when IT people go to work).  In fact, I am writing this blog entry in front of the Blessed Sacrament now.

In between checking on the computers and meditating on the Sacrament of Baptism (that's chapter 6 of Doors to the Sacred, for those of you in R220), I am challenged by the concept of infant baptism.  Before I go any further, disclaimer:  this is my musings only, not what the Catholic Church teaches, and as such I am totally open for discussions for or against.  Also, I haven't read the whole chapter, yet (it's so looong!), and so what I present here may be moot.

I was taught the concept of original sin, as I'm sure all of you also were taught.  I didn't really think much about it at the time.  I was maybe 7 or 8 and the thinking was:  Sister said it, it must be true.  That's basically the reason I was offered when I asked about infant baptism a few years later.  Since I've never challenged the concept of original sin, I haven't questioned why we baptize babies, either.  Until now.

As I understand it now, the only real reason why we want to baptize babies is to clean their soul of original sin.  So, if I accept the concept of original sin, then I shouldn't have any problem with infant baptism.  This is where it gets muddy.  Jesus died for our sins.  All of our sins.  That's all sins in the past, present, and future.  Where does it say that original sin is not part of that deal?

Bishop Kevin Vann's Blog

Our future Bishop is techno-savvy!  He got his own blog!

http://fwbishop.blogspot.com/

Do you think he'll change the blog's name to OCBishop after December 10?

Happy St. Francis feast day!
(yes, I'm looking your way Ciraulos)

Countdown to WHAT??!

In just over a year from now, God willing, us Joyful Servants will be ordained as the newest permanent deacons for the Diocese of Orange.  It's a scary thought, considering all that we have seen and been through. It's a "transcendental" experience!

I want for us to begin exchanging our thoughts, opinions, and any matter of interests using this blog so that we either can bond closer to each other or at least know whom to avoid!  Currently, this is an open blog and as such, any one can view the materials that is presented here.  If we'd rather keep this blog private, that could be done as well.  Just give a shout out of how you feel.  I for one feel that I need more critical examinations of my thoughts and opinions, and so I welcome inputs from anyone, Joyful Servants or not.