Baptism Application Form Example: Fill & Download for Free

This post should be read in conjunction with the learned Devala Rees’ superb post (which I shall unashamedly plagiarise!!).The question is the discernment of TRUTH from LIES - so we deal with these terms one by one.TRUTH in Hindu philosophy (nyāya) is nuanced and is defined as being of two types — “valid = pramā” and “invalid - = apramā”.(yathāvasthita vyavahāra aṇuguṇa jñānam pramā)VALID TRUTH (pramā - pramāṇam) has having three attributes.Correspondance - the statement corresponds with facts.Coherence - the statement must have a logical connection and consistencyConsequence/Functionality - it is actionable - applicable to the needs of daily living.The difference between Valid and Invalid knowledge is illustrated by the example of a mirage. All members of the caravan crossing the dessert actually do see the mirage. All are convinced that there is water - for them it is “truth” - so it fulfils the criteria of “correspondence” - it is also ‘coherent” in that oasis do exist in the desert but it fails on “functionality.”So while knowledge may be true in one sense it is invalid in another, depending on the individual’s capacity to utilise that knowledge.So an engineer has a wide range of Valid Knowledge (pramā) which he can utilise on a daily basis with real practical and useful outcomes for the common good. But that entire body of knowledge, which for him is “valid” is for me “invalid” because there is nothing I can do with it although it is perfectly true according to the first 2 criteria.LIES on the other hand are deliberate attempts to deceive others. Through either manipulating the truth, by showing only one side or inflating or deflating or conflating (like the popular Media do!) - in order to achieve self-serving outcomes.One may substitute LIE with FALSE which is also defined as “intentionally untrue” – some things are said in ignorance but not with a malicious intent.So for example - in world mythology (Abrahamic as well as Hindu/Buddhist/Jain) we learn about the attributes and legends of gods, kings, sages and heroes. We do not ask if these stories are “true” or if they are “lies” .. we ask — are they “valid” or “invalid?”Example #1. So there is the legend of Krishna raising up a mountain on his little finger. Is it Valid Truth or Invalid Truth?So applying the criteria:–Does it correspond to reality? No! Because a mountain is incurable of being raised up into the air.Is it coherent? Yes, the narrative itself has a logical coherence.Is it functional for us? Not really in a pragmatic sense but it does have entertainment value.Conclusion — Invalid/false knowledge because it does not correspond to reality and has no applicability (other than acting as a pilgrimage site and for supplying the devotees with rock trophies to place on their altars.)Example #2. Vishnu is depicted lying on a gigantic multiple headed serpent floating on an a vast ocean. Is it Valid Truth or Invalid Truth?Does it correspond with reality? On the face of it no, but if one unpacks the symbology it does correspond to a metaphysical truth. The ocean is the field of undifferentiated unity ie. Space. The serpent is called Ananta - which means “infinity” and thus represents Time. Vishnu means the “all-pervading consciousness” and hence is coloured blue (space) so these three are the components of the Universe - space-time + consciousness.Is it coherent? Yes the hermeneutic is logical, rational and consistent.Is it functional? Yes it can be used in meditation as an image upon which to focus the mind.Conclusion — Valid Truth - it reveals a thing as it really is and can be used with benefit. (Some would argue that science has not yet proven consciousness to be integral to the architecture of the universe - but neither has it been disproven.)Example #3. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)Does it correspond with reality? It is only found in John’s Gospel and not the others, so there is a question as to whether he really said it. Also it is a metaphorical statement and has no connection to verifiable reality - it is a belief only - it cannot be demonstrated to be true. So the answer is No!.Is it coherent? Homo-sapiens has been on earth for over 100,000 years. Jesus lived 2000 years ago. So billions of humans have lived, loved, worshiped and died for 198,000 years. It has taken 2000 years for knowledge of Jesus to reach everywhere on the globe and even now there are remote communities who have never heard of Jesus — so how did they reach God? How did all the patriarchs of the Torah from Abraham to Joshua know God? So the statement itself is incoherent.Is it functional? What can I do with this knowledge apart from subscribe to it. It has no application whatsoever in my daily life - it is a statement of process so I can think about it but cannot visualise it for mediation. Subscribing to it may get me to the baptismal font - and then what? - no practical use whatsoever.Conclusion — Invalid Truth. It is not “true” but it is also not “false” or a “lie” because John’s intent was not to maliciously and intentionally mislead people - it was only a eulogy of Jesus to encourage conversion.

For what practice did the first Protestants criticize the Roman Catholics?+JMJ+As far as I can figure out the first Protestants mostly criticized the Catholic Church for things which they had never done. For instance, probably the most famous is charging for indulgences. This is pretty much a hopeless subject to even discuss because every Protestant has been raised learning that Catholics charged money for the forgiveness of sin, which is beyond ridiculous.For one, indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin, something which must be accomplished before one is even eligible for an indulgence. For another thing, the Catholic Church has always condemned simony in the strongest possible terms - the charging for sacred things. In consequence, if one buys something, it LOSES any blessing it may have had by the very act of paying for it - thus one cannot “buy” any sacred thing.One of the biggest problems that Protestants have with understanding indulgences is: 1) they deny God’s absolution in the sacrament of Penance (Confession), 2) they do not understand the difference between temporal punishment and eternal punishment, and 3) they do not believe in the Communion of Saints in the way a Catholic does.Here is the way I usually explain indulgences when people ask us when we stopped paying to get our sins forgiven:This is another, "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. You can't answer it, because the premise is a lie. The Catholic Church never sold indulgences, ever. Nor, for that matter do indulgences have anything to do with forgiving sin. You need to understand the Christian concept of the Body of Christ: we are all members of the Body of Christ by our baptism. When one of us sins, we hurt the entire Body. Our Blessed Lord died on the cross to forgive our sins. We apply that forgiveness to ourselves in various ways, the first of which is baptism which wipes out everything up to that point in our lives. After baptism, Our Blessed Lord provided another Sacrament to remove serious sin (and venial {less serious}), that is confession. When you go to confession you must have contrition for your sins, confess all of them, and resolve to never to them again. Let me see if I can explain this another way:To understand indulgences you must first understand sin and its consequences:When one sins, one damages the Body of Christ, as, by our Baptism, we are all members of the Body of Christ, and everything we do, for good or ill, affects everyone.Say you are in the street in your neighborhood playing softball. You hit one and it goes flying across the street and through Mrs. Neighbor's front window. You put the bat down, walk across the street, knock on the door, and apologize to Mrs. Neighbor. She forgives you, since you were nice, and owned up to your fault. Up until now we have the basic scenario of someone going into confession and confessing their sins.But wait, notice that in my example, the window is still broken. You have to go home and confess to your father and mother that you broke the window, they, in turn, take your allowance for the next several years and pay to have the window fixed. The broken window is the example of how we damage the Body of Christ. The allowance that you have to fork over for the next several years is your penance.Now, an indulgence is based on the fact that when Jesus was a man living on the earth, his mother, and the other saints down through the centuries, have done more good works than they need to do their penances (in the case of Our Blessed Lord, and His mother, they had no need of penances, so all their good works are surplus), so, the Church, through Her power of the keys, can apply the merits of those good works to your penance. So in the example above, the indulgence is your parents fixing the window for you, and you are still going to get your allowance. You might have to fork over some of it to help, but they are not going to impoverish you for the next several years.That is what an indulgence is: it is the application of the good works of the saints to make up for your penances. Please note that they are only applicable to someone in a state of grace who has already been forgiven. They have NOTHING to do with the remission of sin. Without prior remission of sin, there can be no indulgence.. Now, any good work can be used to obtain an indulgence in the Church, the classic works of penance are prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The one that causes so much trouble back during the protestant revolt was an indulgence attached to almsgiving. For instance, you can earn a plenary indulgence now if you go to confession, go to Mass, receive Holy Communion, pray for the Holy Father, and do a good work, say a Rosary in front of the Blessed Sacrament, or in a family group. You used to be able to earn a Plenary Indulgence for all the same conditions, but instead of saying the Rosary, you could donate ANY sum of money for some good work the Church was involved with. In this particular case, it was rebuilding St. Peter's Basilica. Because of all the hysterics and false rumors, that is no longer possible. Bottom line? The Church has never sold indulgences, ever.

You are welcome to participate in the Catholic Eucharist (the Mass), including joining in the prayers, possibly reading a scripture passage or singing in the choir, even serving as an altar server or offering the prayers of the faithful.Ordinarily, however, you cannot receive communion.Two principles govern Catholic teaching on sacramental sharing (Eucharistic hospitality) and they are in tension:That Eucharistic communion is a sign of Ecclesial communion, meaning that only members of a particular church should receive communion in that church.That Eucharistic communion is also a source of ecclesial unity, nourishment for the journey toward unity, and that the grace involved therein encourages sharing communion beyond the boundaries of ecclesiastical communion.The current solution is the general rule against, with generous exceptions for.There are certainly circumstances where it is possible.In general, these assume that you are baptized (check), share a Catholic belief in the Real Presence (check), approach the sacrament of your own free will (check), and are properly disposed (check?).Then, in some countries, the bishops’ conference has given specific instructions beyond these general norms.In England and Wales, for example, unique occasions like weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. would be such occasions.In Germany, being in a mixed marriage is a sufficient case.In the United States, where no further instruction has been given, as long as the general conditions are met, it is permitted - though an unusually high number of American clergy seem ignorant of, or simply disagree with, these basic rules, so you may hear announcements to the contrary of the canons.For further detail and reflection, I recommend reading the Code of Canon Law, 844.4, and the Directory for the Application on the Norms and Principles of Ecumenism 129–136.