>> I don't think that's what he's saying man, not exactly.
How is Baptism in voto not contrary to that Canon?
I didn't say that.
What I think is being said by him is not common but not unheard of; it comes in a couple to a few forms but it boils down to the sacrament
having some kind of durable entity/existence. Remember that email I sent you?
Basically this is saying that the effects of the sacrament are "somehow" (very rough statement. unless you want a handful of Tylenol, skip the specs) received via the sacrament (i.e. it "somehow" has durable entity) even though the individual
isn't actually administered the sacrament.
"Oh what a tangled web..." You hittin' the liquid yet?
Remember also what I was asking about how does a dumb-as-dirt, Forrest Gump, parishioner possibly not only practice, but preach, and profess this kind of, "4 isn't 4 in the world of imaginary numbers".... "faith"?
Yeah, this kind of thing is what I was thinking of.
It's just more Yeshiva think poison man. It's straight up Jew.
Stand by for people attempting to apply hindsight for those in the past...
I'm just doing this because you're not one of the walking dead.
I don't care what else the Lads of the world have to say, at least if it's the same old shit that I could site scrub and read yet again as my head is poised over the puke bucket.