Rorate Caeli

On baptizing with beer


A Catholic DISSENT from the Pope’s prohibition of beer baptism: on exegetical, historical-critical, theological, pastoral, missiological, ecclesiological, epidemiological, semio-linguistic, scientific, phenomenological, anthropological, gender-egalitarian, epistemological, and faith-based grounds.

13 comments:

  1. Ecumenical reason for not baptizing with beer: we can't because the Lutheran's wouldn't except it as a valid symbol.

    Also, what would we drink at the baptismal party if we used all the beer for baptisms? (Have you ever been to a Mexican Baptismal party? Best parties ever.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Froggy4:06 AM

    Mmmmm... you guys aren't very good at humor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just go to the linked post and ignore my lame introduction. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Prof. Basto10:50 AM

    It is actually fun. Follow the link and go read the entire text!

    You will get it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:45 PM

    Labels: humor

    ...

    I didn't think that there was any of that on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't really remember, but I seem to recall hearing once that back in the Middle Ages the issue of invalid beer "baptisms" had to be addressed from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we are supposed to baptise with water and the spirit, wouldn't vodka on the rocks be more appropriate?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The Mass of The Roman Rite," Fr. Jungmann, SJ. Volume II, page38 has a footnote referring to legislation from "The Council of Winchester, 1076, under Lanfranc, took the precaution to legislate lest through ignorance priests should attempt to celebrate with water alone or with beer as a substitute for wine."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Beer baptisms could leave the devil hopping mad.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:51 AM

    The smiley face in the foam is a cute touch.

    Delphina

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3:16 AM

    Hello, and re Dilly's comment, what about holy tequila? So we could also use holy salt and holy lime.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for sharing that link. Too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In 1205, the Archbishop of Nidaros (Norway) made ​​a strange request to Pope Innocent III: he asked if he could replace water with beer to administer baptism! The pope refused categorically course. The Archbishop does not seem to have accepted the answer, since it repeats his question to Gregory IX, which reissued the refusal of his predecessor in a letter to Archbishop Sigurd in 1241.

    If water does not lack in Norway, however the wine was probably more difficult to find (and what was worse, as one might imagine, Greenland or Iceland). In 1203, John, bishop of Gardar, told to Paul Bishop of Skalholt how to make wine with some kind of berry called kraekiberjum. This curious concoction was banned by Pope Gregory IX in 1237.

    The Archbishop of Nidaros asked the same Gregory IX if it was possible to give holy communion with beer to the people, which was obviously rejected. The lack of wine remained a problem: the provincial council of Bergen from 1320 ordered for reasons of economy to put more water than wine in the chalice at the offertory.

    See : http://www.schola-sainte-cecile.com/2008/12/03/tout-ce-que-vous-avez-toujours-voulu-savoir-sur-le-rit-de-nidaros/

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!