You hear various arguments, on grace and efficacy of works: faith alone or baptism and faith. Well baptism is a good work, produced by Jesus Christ. So I believe in Faith as a work, and effected by an external rite called baptism — which is the sacrament of faith.

Yet, I find it very interesting and even obnoxious that the New Church of Vatican II (which claims to be the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church) has established a foreign rite to suppress the traditionl Latin Tridentine Catholic praxis (from the Council of Trent) to the point of invalidating the grace of baptism in this Novus Ordo rite. I’m not sure what is the mainstream Protestant stance on this new baptism?

In fact, I recently read this new scholarly book on the topic entitled “Praxis Obnoxia: A Moral-Theological Conclusion On The New Modernist Rite of Baptism.”

http://www.lulu.com/content/3824207

I am very impressed with it, and I cannot refute its arguments, scholarship — tons of quotes from theologians, doctors, councils, and Popes. Basically, the book proves the new rite of baptism is null and void–that means there is no valid baptism in the Vatican II church, and thus no valid sacraments and no salvation in that sect. It seems “very weird”, I admit at first, but the facts are the facts, and I had to read the book a few times to really grasp the significance of what has happened since 1960s. Once you get the book you cannot put it down, it is so intense in scholastic volume.

I even spent some days of hours in the Gordon-Conwell College libraries to talk to some doctors, and even had a debate with a Greek Orthodox Professor from Harvard on this topic of conditional rebaptism or economia or oikonomia.

Not sure what’s your stance? It seems Saint Cyprian would of rebaptized people coming from the New Church to the traditional Orthodox Catholic Church of the Romans.

Any opinions on this? A book review perhaps? Are you familar with “Praxis Obnoxia”? I must say this is a “Hot Topic” with Traditionalists and Conservatives.

No, I don’t know if it has been made public or not (but don’t understand the need for it to be so).

That’s a bit moralistic though isn’t it? I know what you mean in that we need to be aware of who we are receiving. However, your point about knowledge and experience is interesting because I think we live in an abstract way most of the time, having a figure of Jesus in our minds when we receive Him. Rather, because we have experienced joy in receiving Christ at some time t, do you really think it is really because you are prepared? Now, theology says that the more you are disposed to handing yourself to Christ, the more graces you will receive. But I think a person who is not well prepared, and most of us are not probably, can benefit in the sense of attaining union with Christ. Sometimes my mind wanders off in Mass and yet we pray, “Lord, I am not worthy…” and I am reminded of my state.

I think what is important is not so much of “preparing.” What is important in life is not so much how much we have done to prepare, but at this moment in time, right now, can we say, “I am Yours” with affection and gratitude? Even if it doesn’t feel right, when we are walking down to receive Him, we need to be able to make the judgment who we are receiving. I think infrequent communion places too much on our wills, on our judgments, on our ideas of how we should receive Christ rather than the object fact that Christ is present and He is begging us to come to Him. How do we know that He is begging? Because the priest has consecrated the bread. The Church makes the Eucharist. We have certainty that God begs for our hearts, especially in the Eucharist, because the Church, in the Spirit, gives us the certainty that we are not alone.

Now, trusting your own experience means judging the correspondence between the object and the needs of the heart. There were times when I experienced a great joy when receiving the Eucharist. Why is this so? Because I have this wonder I keep going to Mass. Once you go, once you commune with Christ, the more certainty you will have and the more wonder you will have. It is not that the Eucharist “yield greater fruit.” Certainly that is how we will know who the Eucharist is. But what is important is not the effects of the Eucharist but the Eucharist himself. True knowledge that comes from experience, then, is an act of judgment, an act of reason. Despite not feeling prepared, because you know who it is, no matter what your state is (of course mortal sin aside), the important point is whether you can judge who you are receiving. That is really what a witness is, a person who can judge reality as it really is because he has judged it according to the needs of his heart.

I hope that helps a little.

But there is a rich theology in the west, both before and after Pius X, of frequent communion. It gives us an insight into the real nature of the eucharistic celebration that goes beyond immediate experience. It is a theology that is prone to abuse, no doubt. Side altars and simulataneous private Masses are some examples of this.

Experience vs. knowledge.. how does one put these conflicting strands of into practice? Is it better to trust my own experience? Or is it possible that I have yet to discover or acknowledge the benefits of frequent communion?

I go on and off talking with Orthodox on the net because to be honest the whole thing can be tedious.

However that article makes great points and was a blunt as I recalled

-Mike J.

1. Parishes would be small enough so that the entire community can celebrate together the liturgy under its pastor and deacon (ideally, there should be one of each for each parish, and no more, except retirees in residence). This of course means that parishes would be small enough to be truly riven by people really knowing each other (oh, yes, they might also love each other more, but historical experience indicates that familiarity among fallen human beings is more likely to breed contempt, while anonymity breeds to harmony of ignorance) – and this would be much more spiritually challenging, even agonistic in a Greek kind of way, if you catch my drift. I’ve been in large communities and small ones. Small ones, over the long term, are harder. So this is no dewy-eyed idealism here.

2. Dioceses would be small enough for the ordinary to visit a few days each year in each parish. The practice of having auxiliary bishops should fade into history. Administrative efficiencies would be optimized at the provincial or regional level.) See above for cautionary realism.

3. Bishops would be presumed to be wed to their diocese for life except (1) to be elevated to the metropolitan level within their province, and to the patriarchal level from there, and (2) for grave cause in service of the greater good of the local and universal church. I don’t think I need to spell out the cautionary realism on this one.

4. I will leave to your imagination how I think pastors and bishops should be discerned.

I can see the Spirit moving in historical developments that are the opposite of this. So I would be careful not to jump to castigate the developments as inherently bad or ill-founded. I just don’t think that precludes revisiting them now or in the future.

It could be read as an assertion. However, there is an implicit hermeneutic with that temperment which, imo, is not one that is “allowing facts to be viewed before deductive principles.” I am not against elements of it, but I just wanted to respond with the kind of issues I have with such a statement being said without caveats.

And you are right, and I’ve said through the years too, that if people want to understand liturgical reform, look no further than St Pius X. And I think we both agree, there is indeed much that is of God in it. However, as I have also said about it, some of what he did I think were meant to serve only as a beginning, but have led, because they were not continued, to be the end and have led to confusion (like how confirmation/chrismation is treated by many in the West). This, I do not think, is the fault of St Pius X, however, nor the Spirit, but the human response to what transpired.

You misunderstand (I had hoped you wouldn’t and decided not to disclaim in advance the misreading, realizing that I could be misread). It’s not an assertion but a temperment/attitude of allowing facts to be viewed before deductive principles. And I think the questions you next ask would be quite appropriate – but they would be more honest than rhetorical with the attitude I recommend here.

And I have been one who has been saying on the Internet since the mid-1990s that the greatest liturgical revolution in the Roman rite in the 20th century was not Vatican II but that of Pius X. So understand that I think the Pian goals of (1) greater sacramental participation by the laity, and (2) moving decisively away from liturgical minimalism that relies desperately on ex opere operato, were monumental and we are still teasing out the implications of those things. I do think it was Providential that these monumental moves were undertaken in the decade before much of Christendom entered a 75-year blood bath – I wonder what would have happened without them.

There are many issues one could have with that assertion.

1)It could be used to justify any abuse. “The Spirit might have been behind the development of” — selling indulgences; priests with concubines; etc.

2) Even if one takes for granted there is truth, it must be asked, why and how and how far is it to go, and is it only for a temporary pastoral situation or something else. For example, I do think there is a problem in the Western tradition which allows for communion before confirmation, though I can see (and Taft, did, too) the Spirit working in St Pius X for his affirmation of more frequent communion and even encouraging the youth to take communion. Now, many people think that is the end of it, and say “see, it is the Spirit, let’s keep it this way.” I say nay. I think, as with many others, there is a need to restore the order of baptism-confirmation-communion, while acknowledging that pastoral sensitivity and dispensation might allow for what happened under St Pius X.