There is? cool !Ars Lande wrote:Maybe I haven't been clear enough...
People who get 'un-baptisms' or however you call it feel that as a consequence of their baptism, they are unwillingly Catholics, even if it's in the most theoretical sense of the word and would like to officially renounce it.
That is also how I understood ObsequiousNewt's question.
It turns out there is a recognized procedure to do exactly that.
ZBB Census 2013
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Re: ZBB Census 2013
I even found the Vatican's official position on the matter: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... is_en.html
Basically you need to write to the appropriate bishop.
(Though if I were you, I wouldn't bother. It's not a very useful gesture, I think. )
Basically you need to write to the appropriate bishop.
(Though if I were you, I wouldn't bother. It's not a very useful gesture, I think. )
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Yeah, that's apostasy, that's what we were talking about earlier... apostasy, however, is not -from the perspective of the catholic church- the same as un-baptism. You correctly point out, though, that anyone willing to unbaptize is looking at it from not that perspective but, still, invoking the official position of the church becomes then irrelevant.
Also, consider that the seventh point there is that
7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
So it is the vatican position that reversing the religious dimension of baptism [the sacramental bond of belonging to so on and so forth] is impossiburu!
So the point is that the catholic and the noncatholic only agree about one aspect of baptism, namely that it is the rite by which someone enters the church. So if the catholics and noncatholics agree on at least that dimension of baptism then it makes *some* sense for a noncatholic to describe apostasy as unbaptism ?
Also, consider that the seventh point there is that
7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
So it is the vatican position that reversing the religious dimension of baptism [the sacramental bond of belonging to so on and so forth] is impossiburu!
So the point is that the catholic and the noncatholic only agree about one aspect of baptism, namely that it is the rite by which someone enters the church. So if the catholics and noncatholics agree on at least that dimension of baptism then it makes *some* sense for a noncatholic to describe apostasy as unbaptism ?
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Yes, precisely. And I'm apparently not alone in thinking that; "débaptisation" ("unbaptism") will get you a lot of hits on Google, all of which refer to the same apostasy process.Torco wrote:So if the catholics and noncatholics agree on at least that dimension of baptism then it makes *some* sense for a noncatholic to describe apostasy as unbaptism ?
I prefer the word 'apostasy' myself.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
yay heresy!
also jesus was neither god nor man but candy. this is fun!
also jesus was neither god nor man but candy. this is fun!
Re: ZBB Census 2013
it is not that you have not been clear enough, it is that you keep repeating yourself to no end and ignoring more relevant things. i have no intention of doing so, so kindly go and read what i said again if you want to talk about this.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
I have said pretty much all I had to say on the matter.
At the risk of repeating myself once again: yes, I've read your posts, yes, there is a form of 'unbaptism', no you can't reverse baptism according to Catholic doctrine, but that's not important, and no, despite whatever non-Catholics might think, Catholic baptism is not a matter of subscription and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.
If there's anything important you feel I've left unanswered, I'm willing to discuss it, but frankly I have a feeling we won't be able to have an intelligent discussion about this.
At the risk of repeating myself once again: yes, I've read your posts, yes, there is a form of 'unbaptism', no you can't reverse baptism according to Catholic doctrine, but that's not important, and no, despite whatever non-Catholics might think, Catholic baptism is not a matter of subscription and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.
If there's anything important you feel I've left unanswered, I'm willing to discuss it, but frankly I have a feeling we won't be able to have an intelligent discussion about this.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
oh no, the liberal kiss of death -- the person you are talking to is wrong and you cannot talk him into agreeing with you, and it has to be because of stupidity!Ars Lande wrote:I have said pretty much all I had to say on the matter.
At the risk of repeating myself once again: yes, I've read your posts, yes, there is a form of 'unbaptism', no you can't reverse baptism according to Catholic doctrine, but that's not important, and no, despite whatever non-Catholics might think, Catholic baptism is not a matter of subscription and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.
If there's anything important you feel I've left unanswered, I'm willing to discuss it, but frankly I have a feeling we won't be able to have an intelligent discussion about this.
except what i wrote was saying that not only is it true that there is an (emerging?) form of 'unbaptism', contrary to Catholic doctrine, but that it is *not necessarily pointless* to do so, as you said -- something you have entirely failed to ~engage with~ and have instead insisted on going 'no fuck you, it is TOO reversible!' in increasingly petulant tones! is the reason we can't have an intelligent conversation ironically due to the fact you are too stupid to be able to read what is in front of you???
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: ZBB Census 2013
The problem is, what you are saying is basically nonsense.
Is there a way to become unbaptised? Well, do you mean officially or unofficially?
If you mean unofficially... well then you can define whatever you want as 'unbaptism'. You can say that turning three times while holding the spoon and chanting 'I love the Pope, I want to be a Catholic' is a form of 'unbaptism'. You can define the word however you want, unofficially.
If you mean officially, which is what you said - well then which office?
If the ecclesial office: there is no way to officially become unbaptised, because baptism is irreversible
If the secular office: there is no way to officially become unbaptised, because baptism does not exist
You're taking a ritual from a religion you don't share, and saying that it is 'officially' a ritual for accomplishing something that nobody inside that religion says it accomplishes, and which it is not logically connected to in any way. This 'officialness' is therefore just your personal whimsy. So why not just say that the 'official' way to become unbaptised is to balance a teapot on your head? It would make about as much sense, and have about as much consequence in the world.
Again: how is this not just the religious equivalent of the sovereign citizens, redemptionists, etc?
Is there a way to become unbaptised? Well, do you mean officially or unofficially?
If you mean unofficially... well then you can define whatever you want as 'unbaptism'. You can say that turning three times while holding the spoon and chanting 'I love the Pope, I want to be a Catholic' is a form of 'unbaptism'. You can define the word however you want, unofficially.
If you mean officially, which is what you said - well then which office?
If the ecclesial office: there is no way to officially become unbaptised, because baptism is irreversible
If the secular office: there is no way to officially become unbaptised, because baptism does not exist
You're taking a ritual from a religion you don't share, and saying that it is 'officially' a ritual for accomplishing something that nobody inside that religion says it accomplishes, and which it is not logically connected to in any way. This 'officialness' is therefore just your personal whimsy. So why not just say that the 'official' way to become unbaptised is to balance a teapot on your head? It would make about as much sense, and have about as much consequence in the world.
Again: how is this not just the religious equivalent of the sovereign citizens, redemptionists, etc?
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: ZBB Census 2013
you put the case for 'unofficially' surprisingly poorly for somebody who occasionally calls himself an anarchist.
sure, one can unofficially do things in arbitrarily silly ways, but when you liberate people from authoritarian top-down control (e.g. the roman catholic church) and let them organise spontaneously into patterns that satisfy human desires without coercion etc, spoonchanting is not the sort of thing that catches on. there will be some spoonchanters, sure, but they will probably be fringe and frankly a load of contrarian ultra-individualist wishy washy hippy types. instead, there is a natural conservatism in people, and an affection for the old way of doing things. people want an initiatory rite, because it's nice to belong to something, but not one which is *too* binding, because that sort of commitment is scary to your modern, atomised human. there is this nice package called 'baptism' which takes place in a beautiful building, is performed by a man with special clothing, has the devil in it (where this is not too edgy for people), which you yourself went through, and your ancestors and which has roles for godparents etc to fit in. an unofficially-arranged baptism, where the authority of the priest to baptise comes not through his being an ordained priest of the roman church, and it is not efficacious because it is a sacrament, but where those things come through community consent would be at once 'unofficial' and existent (it is at least incipiently so).
if it continues along the same lines as what happened to marriage, very likely people will want to get the state involved to (as the ~only thing we all belong to~, it is also appealing to 'liberated' folk), it will gain an official sense through that, but since there are no *state* benefits accruing to baptised people at present, unlike as it is with marriage, it is difficult to see how there would be any push for that to happen. possibly if the state took a turn to the right and turned it into a sort of loyalty ceremony, or the situation with faith schools gets worked into national education policy (perhaps a more Labourite solution?)?
sure, one can unofficially do things in arbitrarily silly ways, but when you liberate people from authoritarian top-down control (e.g. the roman catholic church) and let them organise spontaneously into patterns that satisfy human desires without coercion etc, spoonchanting is not the sort of thing that catches on. there will be some spoonchanters, sure, but they will probably be fringe and frankly a load of contrarian ultra-individualist wishy washy hippy types. instead, there is a natural conservatism in people, and an affection for the old way of doing things. people want an initiatory rite, because it's nice to belong to something, but not one which is *too* binding, because that sort of commitment is scary to your modern, atomised human. there is this nice package called 'baptism' which takes place in a beautiful building, is performed by a man with special clothing, has the devil in it (where this is not too edgy for people), which you yourself went through, and your ancestors and which has roles for godparents etc to fit in. an unofficially-arranged baptism, where the authority of the priest to baptise comes not through his being an ordained priest of the roman church, and it is not efficacious because it is a sacrament, but where those things come through community consent would be at once 'unofficial' and existent (it is at least incipiently so).
if it continues along the same lines as what happened to marriage, very likely people will want to get the state involved to (as the ~only thing we all belong to~, it is also appealing to 'liberated' folk), it will gain an official sense through that, but since there are no *state* benefits accruing to baptised people at present, unlike as it is with marriage, it is difficult to see how there would be any push for that to happen. possibly if the state took a turn to the right and turned it into a sort of loyalty ceremony, or the situation with faith schools gets worked into national education policy (perhaps a more Labourite solution?)?
Re: ZBB Census 2013
This actually exists in some places. In France, we have 'Republican baptism' or 'Civil baptism', by analogy with civil marriage and yes, the state is involved. It's still far from a widespread thing, thankfully. I'm not happy with the implications of the State basically replacing the Church.Pthagnar wrote:an unofficially-arranged baptism, where the authority of the priest to baptise comes not through his being an ordained priest of the roman church, and it is not efficacious because it is a sacrament, but where those things come through community consent would be at once 'unofficial' and existent (it is at least incipiently so).
if it continues along the same lines as what happened to marriage, very likely people will want to get the state involved to (as the ~only thing we all belong to~, it is also appealing to 'liberated' folk), it will gain an official sense through that, but since there are no *state* benefits accruing to baptised people at present, unlike as it is with marriage, it is difficult to see how there would be any push for that to happen. possibly if the state took a turn to the right and turned it into a sort of loyalty ceremony, or the situation with faith schools gets worked into national education policy (perhaps a more Labourite solution?)?
Re: ZBB Census 2013
france is a weird place and her revolution the most shocking and outrageous before that of russia. i suppose it could also come through the EU route -- they're not above encouraging civil marriage laws, after all.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: ZBB Census 2013
what in great galloping fuck is 'civil baptism'
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Nortaneous wrote:what in great galloping fuck is 'civil baptism'
Pthagnar wrote:france is a weird place and her revolution the most shocking and outrageous before that of russia.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Apparently, parents get to celebrate the birth in the town hall. The mayor makes a speech.Nortaneous wrote:what in great galloping fuck is 'civil baptism'
Also, the kid gets to have a parrain and marraine ("godparents") which is apparently the most appealing part.
If you feel the need to go 'what the fuck' at this stage, that's probably a healthy reaction.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: ZBB Census 2013
the fuck
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: ZBB Census 2013
that sounds like an excellent way to ensure uniformly grey mayors
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
I looked around a bit, according to the Catechism, the Catholic Church considers marriage as ending with the death of one partner (Catechism §2361). That's what I expected and it chimes with the practice of widows / widowers remarrying, usual in Christendom for, well, basically since it exists. So where does this "eternal spiritual union of two souls" come from?hwhatting wrote:In order to side-track this thread even more:Concerning the part I underlined - can any of the experts on Catholic doctrine on this board tell me whether this is indeed so and how eternal spiritual union of two souls squares with (a) the Catholic church allowing widowers / widows to remarry and (b) with the whole "no marriage valid after resurrection" issue (Mark XII, 25)? Does the church allow multiple soul unions after death? Does resurrection resolve those unions? Does only one of the unions count for eternity? (I assume Mark XII, 25 is one of the reasons why the Protestant churches don't count marriage / matrimony as a sacrament).phtagnar wrote:there are plenty of people who do not believe in holy matrimony who have taken the idea of 'marriage' and turned it into something entirely secular -- it has gone from being an eternal spiritual union of two souls -- one male, one female -- which cannot be broken by any secular authority,...
Re: ZBB Census 2013
from me, obviously. catholics these days are famously poorly catechised -- I think I was confusing the eternal nature of the sacrament itself (i.e. it will always exist because the church will always exist) with the non-eternal instantiation of the sacrament.twatting wrote:I looked around a bit, according to the Catechism, the Catholic Church considers marriage as ending with the death of one partner (Catechism §2361). That's what I expected and it chimes with the practice of widows / widowers remarrying, usual in Christendom for, well, basically since it exists. So where does this "eternal spiritual union of two souls" come from?
few institutions are valid until,, and only until, kingdom come, though, so it's quite a bit more eternal than civil marriage.
- ObsequiousNewt
- Avisaru
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:05 pm
- Location: /ˈaɪ̯əwʌ/
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Precisely. Frankly, it doesn't trouble me enough to officially unbaptize myself, but I was curious if it was possible.Ars Lande wrote:I imagine ObsequiousNewt is similarly unconcerned (or he wouldn't ask about unbaptism in the first place). What he actually wants to do is reject all implications of Catholism that might arise due to his baptism.
Like I said, that is fairly easy to do; all you have to do is renounce baptism. You can even get the Church to recognize this officially, if that really troubles you.
Also, how is marriage "eternal" when that state ceases once you (both) die? I was always under the impression that your marital status on earth didn't matter in heaven.
퇎
Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.
Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.
- ol bofosh
- Smeric
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:30 pm
- Location: tʰæ.ɹʷˠə.ˈgɜʉ̯.nɜ kʰæ.tə.ˈlɜʉ̯.nʲɜ spɛ̝ɪ̯n ˈjʏː.ɹəʔp
Re: ZBB Census 2013
It's weird that. On one hand Jesus says "What God has united, let no man split" (and transcends earthly ties, i.e. survives in Heaven). Effectively the two souls become one, and I suppose in Heaven they are one.ObsequiousNewt wrote:Also, how is marriage "eternal" when that state ceases once you (both) die? I was always under the impression that your marital status on earth didn't matter in heaven.
On the other hand he said that bone a woman's husband dies that she should... marry his brothers? Something like that. Though what happens when you arrive in Heaven with two husbands waiting for you, I don't know.
It was about time I changed this.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
Concerning the Census, if anyone wants to include a 7th fact in "Measurements" about how (s)he uses his/her brain, can do this test: http://en.sommer-sommer.com/braintest/
Un llapis mai dibuixa sense una mà.
- ol bofosh
- Smeric
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:30 pm
- Location: tʰæ.ɹʷˠə.ˈgɜʉ̯.nɜ kʰæ.tə.ˈlɜʉ̯.nʲɜ spɛ̝ɪ̯n ˈjʏː.ɹəʔp
Re: ZBB Census 2013
84% right-brained, 16% left.Izambri wrote:Concerning the Census, if anyone wants to include a 7th fact in "Measurements" about how (s)he uses his/her brain, can do this test: http://en.sommer-sommer.com/braintest/
chaos
creativity
intuition
fantasy
images
curiosity
Good stuff, good stuff. Now 'scuse me while I talk to my pink, fluffy unicorn.
It was about time I changed this.
Re: ZBB Census 2013
That wasn't Jesus, that was God. And Jews don't really have heaven anyway, so there's no problem there.ol bofosh wrote:On the other hand he said that bone a woman's husband dies that she should... marry his brothers? Something like that. Though what happens when you arrive in Heaven with two husbands waiting for you, I don't know.