Thursday, August 25, 2016

Baptism: The Sacrament Of Faith

An anonymous person made the following comment under the thread, A Comparison.  His/Her comment can be found here. 

Diana, you've shown how Chuck twisted everything around. But Chuck gets his teachings from Tim. Is Tim correct about faith coming mainly from the Eucharist? The Eucharist is always the main focal point of the TLM Catholics.

TimAugust 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
It is Guile who is the protestant/neocat here, intimating that the Eucharist is just one of many channels of a faith. This is exactly neocat teaching. We receive Faith through our parents, but our parents are not God. We receive Faith through the Gospel, but the Gospel is not God. We receive Faith through our pastors, but our pastors are not God. And we receive Faith through the Eucharist and the Eucharist IS God. It is how Jesus desires to feed us: with himself, with his own flesh and blood. Only neocats and Mr. Guile see the Eucharist as only one "channel" of faith among many.

Apparently, this comment from Tim Rohr started with a post from Glaucon Jr. who stated: The Eucharist is the source of our Faith (whether by “Eucharist” you mean the Real Presence or the rite that makes it so, it really makes no difference).  Glaucon Jr.'s post can be found here.  Tim Rohr, who did not correct this error, apparently endorsed the error. The seed of faith was not planted in us at the Eucharist.  It was planted in us in our baptism.   

My comments below is what we believe about the source of faith, and it is aligned with Catholic teaching:  

Faith is a free gift from God, and we received this free gift at our baptism.   Baptism is seen as connected with faith (CCC 1226) and is even called the "sacrament of faith" (CCC 1236 and CCC 1253). On our baptism, the Holy Spirit planted the seed of faith in us.  But this seed needs to be nurtured so that our faith would grow into maturity (CCC 1248).  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the bold is mine): 

CCC 1253    Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!" 

CCC 1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

How can the seed of faith be nurtured so that it would grow after Baptism?  It is through the proclaiming of the word of God and in the Eucharist that our faith is nourished. Mother Church sustains, strengthens and nourishes us through the Holy Mass, which contains the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. His word strengthened and nourished our faith so we would come closer to knowing God.  And through the Eucharist, we become one and united with Christ. Christ shared in our humanity through the mystery of the Incarnation, and Christ instituted the Eucharist so that we can be united with Christ's humanity and divinity and have eternal life (John 6:51). This was the Lord's desire when He prayed to His Father in the Garden of Gethsamane: 
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for  who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)
By consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, we truly become one and united with Christ's humanity and divinity in the most intimate way.  The Blood of Christ flows in our veins, and His flesh is one with our flesh. Christ also said that he who eats His Body will have eternal life (John 6:51). 

If the seed of faith in us does not grow, it becomes a dead faith.  Living faith works through charity (CCC 1814). For many of us, our faith is still at the infantile stage, but the Apostle Paul encouraged us to always persevere and grow in the faith otherwise this priceless gift can be lost (see 1 Timothy 1:18-19 and CCC 162).   


  1. Dear Diana,

    If you'd be so kind, please publish so that there is no mistake about what's been said.

    I see you've made a comment based on a comment on a post of mine, so please allow me to clarify so everyone knows exactly what's being said and there's no misunderstanding.

    You said in your post:
    "Apparently, this comment from Tim Rohr started with a post from Glaucon Jr. who stated: The Eucharist is the source of our Faith (whether by “Eucharist” you mean the Real Presence or the rite that makes it so, it really makes no difference). Glaucon Jr.'s post can be found here. Tim Rohr, who did not correct this error, apparently endorsed the error. The seed of faith was not planted in us at the Eucharist. It was planted in us in our baptism."

    I'm assuming with a busy schedule you didn't have time yet to read the actual post, but rather focused on Tim's comment. In the post itself, which was in answer to Mr Guile, I began by making the clarification between Faith (capital F) and faith (small f). By Faith, I mean the entirety of the Faith in the Holy Church of Christ our God, and that is what i reiterated to Mr Guile. Likewise, faith (small f) indicated the individual faith of a person, which therefore includes the gift of faith received from God through the Sacraments, the Church, etc.

    In my post, I was speaking specifically of THE FAITH and all that entails. Later statements about faith itself made the point that although God may use various means to grant and build faith, the Eucharist is the source par excellence. Hence, given CCC 1324, I'm sure we both agree that the Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." Ergo, there was no error at all. I'm sure this was an oversight on your part.

    As far as your statements about Baptism, there is nothing else to say. I didn't parse it, but I think it's rather complete.

    PS. Kudos on referring to it as the "Holy Mass" and "Holy Church." Both phrases are more common among TLM Catholics, so it is nice to see that the truth of the terms is recognized elsewhere.

    1. So ok Mr. Glaucon...with all due respect...can you answer a simple question? Do you have Faith?

  2. Dear Glaucon, faith is a gift from God. Something you receive freely. You cannot name one thing as the "source of faith". No such thing exists. God would give you faith through the most unexpected manners when you are predisposed by baptism. Baptism is the first step. An unexpected healing or meeting someone or seeing a light... all these could give you faith. Then slowly, little-by-little you would recognize the miracles of God acting in the world and in your life. This is faith!

    The Eucharist will nourish your faith, but won't give you faith by itself. That is why children are educated before the First Communion. They are educated in faith so that they can receive the nourishment of the Eucharist. That is how it becomes the source and summit of Christian life.

    You dogmatic traditionalists don't understand this. Your lack of faith makes you cower in fear when you see the faith of other people who differ from you. Why? Because you think only your faith is faith. Your world is collapsing as soon as faith can be anything else than yours. This is egocentric.

    Try to break out of the shell of yourself. Try to reach our for Christ, who is extending his hand toward you. If you don't make the leap of faith, you'll never reach Him. We are your sisters and brother who will keep you up if you would fall. Courage!

    1. Did you even read Glaucon's reply? He made it very clear that he was speaking about Faith (with a big F) - in other words - The Faith of the Church. Can you see how this is a differnt meaning to an individual's "faith"?

      The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Faith of the Church.

    2. Dear anon at 5:05 pm, I agree with you. People who are so timid as Glaucon Jr. shows himself to be, are usually very much scared by the world and frightened by the real life out there. They have small faith, small heart, small everything. They prefer hiding in a lock-box and dream fairy tales of themselves. Don't look them down, they also have some kind of life. It is not joyful, not enjoyable, but it is still life.

      Timid people have timid faith. No flexibility, no imagination, no innovation, nothing. Only one thing in everything, one way to adore God, one way to take the Eucharist. They forget how flexible, how imaginative, how innovative our Lord was when he dwelt among us. Even if He came to show us His Ways, the many paths that all lead to Him!

      We have to show them how to have big heart, big faith, big trust in God. Because growing toward Jesus Christ is the best thing they can ever have... once they become able to live their lives in His joyfulness!

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:04 pm,

      And who is the Chuch? Are they not the individual members?

    4. Anon 8:04, are you the echo or shadow of Glau?! Lol. Can't he speak for himself?

  3. Well Diana, I tried. I really did. I was courteous, deferential, and non-combative. I worded my comment carefully so as to give no cause for offense in the spirit of dialogue, all focusing on the points of contact in agreement.

    Somehow, that turned into a statement of my personal flaws, my timidity, my lack of faith, my small-mindedness, all because of a statement of the primacy of the Eucharist because it is literally God where once was bread.


    1. Dear Glaucon Jr.,

      Do you honestly think we do not know that you are stabbing us in the back? You say you come here being courteous and in the spirit of dialogue? These are the words you posted in the jungle about us:

      1. We are not Protestants and we are not NCW--both are scandalized by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and their jeering at it makes me want to vomit.

      2. Why the Diana’s Catechism blather is so random and impervious to reason, and why Zoltan’s wicked pontificating seem to go on and on, as though he's Nigel Tufnel explaining that his amp is louder because it goes to 11.

      These are only two samples. There is actually more. When you already made up your mind that the NCW is evil, you closed the door of dialogue yourself.

    2. We each speak our minds, and I only clarified my position, and this leads to ad hominem attacks. Fine. Your people can't fight with truth, just prideful boasting of their righteousness. And no, citing JW activity as justification just proves you're no better than those you condemn.

      I have called Kiko Arguello's theology evil and I stand by it. I believe him to be an Arian and will continue working to prove it. If he isn't, I'm honest enough to say I'm wrong. But that is NOT a statement about you or any other sincere follower. If God uses thr NCW for conversions in His mercy, that's s good. My complaint now as always has been what I see is a separation from the rest of the Church. For all the evangelization, the case has not yet been made supporting how NCW is with us. Comments here repeatedly assert NCW superiority. Comments here repeatedly give NCW credit for saving marriages et al. when it was Christ through His Church who worked these miracles.

      In my own life, wth all the problems that have come, I was a return to the Tradition that made me see so clearly God's love. That's why my entire life is dedicated to him through and through, despite such ugliness from the sanctimonious judges who call me weak or timid or whatever vile libel.

      And there's no stabbing a in the back. Betrayal requires that we be friends. We are not on the same team. You and everyone else knows this. I have repeatedly tried to open the door to allow NCW understanding of different things to be explained. No one I approached has bothered to try. It's illuminating that you promote evangelizing in faraway places, but will not explain anything to us who are right here.

      Yes, there are many many statements, but the point of dialogue is to deal with this with whom you disagree. If we were in agreement, there would be no needfor dialogue, yes? Deep down, I think most people find it easier to just attack rather than convince with truth in charity.

      Such as it is. Thanks for posting the clarification.

      PS remember James 3:1. It should give us all pause.

    3. Glaucon, I have never seen anyone here to assert NCW superiority. We have never boasted here for saving marriages. You are making up charges that someone wrote down 10 0000 miles away in an anti-NCW book. Lol. You fight with a phantom, not real people. Still, you have the guts to scold your Catholic sisters and brothers whom you NEVER call back your sisters and brothers in Christ. Good riddance!

    4. Glaucon, Kiko Arguello has no theology! What he teaches and what the NCW represents is the theology of the Catholic Church. You are adamant to find difference between the two. But there is none! After years and years of scrutinizing NCW you could find nothing.

  4. Mr. you have faith? yes or no?

    1. Of course I have faith in our Lord, just as we all do here. This was never about unbelief for any of us, but rather bad teaching. I see the NCW has false teaching , and the NCW sees what I see as falsehood, or rather, imperfect faith. By this is still about all who believe. I do not doubt the faith of anyone here

  5. Diana,
    As I read all these comments here and on the other OPs, it occurred to me that the battle is waged between those who were unfulfilled by the Traditional Catholic Mass and those who are seeking an alternate way to celebrate. (A bit simplified, I realize, but it's a general assessment.)

    I recall when the Priests first turned around and faced the congregation, when the head covers--veils and such--came off, and many people felt uncomfortable. Then "folk mass" became popular and while the elderly were aghast, the young people liked it. Talk of bringing the young back to the Church was the call of the time so "hip" priests were given rein to use the language of the young.
    There's always a concern to bring the strays back to the fold, so to speak, and to prevent others from leaving. Protocol became lax, and different interpretations gave way to differing practices.
    I view NCW as one such movement--an attempt to make being a Catholic more meaningful to people based on Kiko and Carmen's interpretations of the Bible and the Catechism.

    The problem I see is: if it's okay for NCW to do that, then it'll be okay for others (if they can back it up). So where does it end? Do you see where I'm going with this? We'll all be Catholic following the basic tenets of the Religion, but have different ways to celebrate. I see a precedent being set that allows for differing interpretations, and as large as the Roman Catholic religion is, it'll be harder and harder to ensure that what is being done is in line with our beliefs. We'll be just like the Protestants who have so many different churches throughout the nation. "Pop up" churches are not uncommon in the states.
    Do you view this as a problem or as the direction the Catholic religion needs to take?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:54 am,

      Over the centuries, the liturgies in the Catholic Church have changed. That is not new. Even today, the Latin-rite church has 9 different liturgies while the Eastern Catholics have about 14. Therefore, what kept Catholics united is not the liturgy. Our unity is through our baptism and union with the Pope.

      The doctrines have always remained the same for both the Latin-rite and eastern-rite church. All the organizations within the Catholic Church follows the same doctrines. As a matter of fact, in this blog, I and the brothers in the NCW admit that we recognized Jesus in the Eucharist...body, blood, soul and divinity. We recognize the host to be that of the actual Body of Christ.

      Now if you go to the Junglewatch blog, they claimed that the NCW does not believe the host to be the actual Body of Christ. So, who are the people supposed to believe? They should believe the Pope. Pope Francis already stated that he supports and endorsed the Way and blessed the charism of the Way.

    2. My apologies. I am @7:54 and what I actually meant in my opening paragraph was that I view the battle is between Traditional Mass people vs those seeking an alternative way to celebrate. But I think you got the message. thank you

    3. Thank you for your response, Diana.
      And, yes, we need to follow what the Pope says. After all, he is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the religion is intact and remains true to its central tenets.

    4. Jungle watch people think that because of your words taken from this very site. If you do believe that, how can you receive Jesus Christ in such an irreverent way?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 10:21 am,

      Irreverent according to whom? May I remind you that the junglefolks are also against the regular parish Mass.

    6. Well, since I go to and receive and have no problem with regular parish masss, I'd say that's not quite true.

      Ok it's your blog. I'll be quiet

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. "junglefolks" are not against the "regular parish Mass", but rather against illicit deletions and additions to the Mass, and against bad and banal liturgy. That explains why there is a problem with the NCW liturgy too.

    9. Dear Anonymous at 1:35 pm,

      All these things they consider illicit have been approve by the Vatican. As an example, Tim Rohr is against receiving the Body of Christ by hand and encouraged his followers to kneel and receive His Body on the tongue. He wants the tabernacle in the center despite that the Vatican already said it is okay to have it on the side. His intention is to install the Traditional Latin Mass.

    10. Of course Tim encourages that. He's passionate about the Faith, just as you are. What's so terrible about us being REALLY aware of the King whom we receive. That's really the point, and it has nothing to do with Latin Mass. I attend Novus Ordo liturgy 5 days a week, and of course it's valid and in my parish, it's reverent. Tim is against abuses. For example, he's for attending mass on Sunday, not Saturday night. The NCW is just as focused on members attend liturgy in their communities on the proper night. Times not "out there." He's like all of us who ant purity of liturgy. You want it too, as you understand it.

      I am confused however hey anyone would be opposed to the centrality of the Tabernacle since God is there and in Kiko's architecture, so is Scripture. So why the opposition?

    11. "All these things they consider illicit have been approve by the Vatican"

      That's just patently false. When the Vatican approves a liturgical practice, everyone knows about, because it is published and promulgated. In this sense, you cannot seriously claim that the Vatican has in any way approved sitting to consume the Blessed Sacrament. Nor the simultaneous communion of priest and faithful.

      You can perceive whatever you wish of Tim Rohr's intentions. I don't really care about that. The Novus Ordo may be weak, but it is valid. And we should care how we go about our participation in the Mass, particularly with the firm intention of doing what the Church asks of us. And where they conflict or contradict, not the NCW, but the Church.

    12. Dear Glaucon Jr,

      I do not tell any person who attends the parish Mass to kneel and use their tongue to receive the Body of Christ. They can either receive Him by tongue or by hand. I respect the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass as they are and do not go around telling people what they should do and how things should be done.

    13. " not go around telling people what they should do and how things should be done. "

      No, its not your job to that. The Church is the only lawful authority who can tell us this. Our job is to be obedient and faithful to the doctrine of the Church.

      The NCW tabernacle and the manner of communion are examples of its disobedience and willfulness.

    14. Dear Anonymous at 9:24 pm,

      You do not seem to have a problem with Tim Rohr going around telling people what to do what should not be done in the parish Mass and the NCW. If you truly believe that it is the Church who has the lawful authority to tell us what to do, then stop telling the NCW what to do. Simple as that. If you feel that we are not doing the right thing, write a letter of complaint to the Vatican. Simple as that.

  6. Yes but the variety of liturgy in the Latin rite is based on history, not invention. And in no rite is communion received sitting down.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:56 pm,

      The NCW do not receive the Body of Christ sitting down. We receive it standing up.

    2. Ok, in no rite is communion consumed sitting down

    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:21 pm,

      Yes, we consume the Body of Christ sitting down.