Let's say a Christian grew up in a non-Baptist Reformed church and was baptized as an infant. This Christian went through a catechism and confirmation during his youth (12-15 yr. old) and in the process came to a *personal conviction* and *personal decision* to make Christ his Lord and Savior. The pastor (the catechist) knew this and because of that he decided that the candidate is ready for confirmation. In the confirmation ceremony he declared his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ publicly to the congregation and by that ceremony became a full member of the church and was allowed to take communion. (See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90330/10672) for the meaning of Confirmation for a pedobaptist Reformed church). This Christian now goes to another church, a Baptist church that practices adult full immersion, which also holds the same Reformed theology apart from baptism. Knowing the personal history of this Christian, **what is the typical Reformed Baptist church policy on this?** I can think of a few options: 1. Ignore the infant baptism and the confirmation completely, and treat this person like other baptism candidates 1. Consider the infant baptism invalid since an infant cannot make a conscious declaration of faith, so have him re-baptized 1. Do not require adult baptism, but require the person to do the remaining important element, such as making a public confession and taking a class (to update the theology) so he can then become an elder later 1. Recognize the combination of Infant baptism + Confirmation ceremony to be equivalent to adult baptism since all the elements (baptism using Trinitarian formula, declaration of faith, public announcement, admittance to membership + communion) were believed and performed within the same Reformed theology framework. In implementing the policy, can you also give an **overview of pastoral approaches** in Baptist churches for people who fit the case study above, i.e. were baptized as infants, catechized, confirmed, and became member of a pedobaptist Reformed church?

In his article [*The Magisterium, Biblical and Pastoral Aspects*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/magisterium-biblical-and-pastoral-aspects-3773) , Fr. John F. Wealon writes: > I know of no wiser treatment than that of the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967. The pastoral says: "At this point we must soberly discuss a difficult question, which in the case of many Catholics today, much more than in the past, either menaces their faith or their spontaneous confidence in the doctrinal authority of the Church. We are thinking of the fact that in the exercise of its office, the doctrinal authority of the Church can be subject to error and has in fact erred. The Church has always known that something of the sort was possible. It has stated it in its theology and developed rules for such situations. This possibility of error does not affect doctrines which are proclaimed to be held with absolute assent, by a solemn definition of the Pope or of a General Council or by the ordinary magisterium. It is also historically wrong to affirm that errors of the Church have subsequently been discovered in such dogmas. This of course is not to deny that in the case of a dogma growth in understanding is always possible and always necessary, the original sense being maintained while previous possible misunderstandings are eliminated. And of course the problem in question must not be confused with the obvious fact that there is changeable human law in the Church as well as divine and unalterable law. Changes in such human law have nothing to do with error, but simply raise the question of the opportuneness of legal dispositions at different times. As regards error and the possibility of error in non-defined doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, where in fact the degree of obligation can vary very widely, we must begin by accepting soberly and resolutely the fact that the whole of our human life in general has also to be lived simply 'according to the best of our knowledge'. We have to follow our conscience according to our lights, which cannot be justified with absolute intellectual certainty but still remain here and now the valid norms to be respected in thought and action, because for the present there is nothing better. This is something which everyone knows from his own experience. It is a truth accepted by every doctor in his diagnosis and by every statesman in his judgment of a political situation and the decisions to be taken in view of it. The Church too, in its doctrine and practice, cannot always allow itself to be faced by the dilemma of either giving an absolutely binding doctrinal decision or simply remaining silent and leaving everything to the personal opinion of the individual. To safeguard the real substance of the faith, the Church must give doctrinal instructions, which have a certain degree of obligation but not being definitions of the faith, have a certain provisional character, even to the extent of possible error. This is a risk which must be taken, since otherwise the Church would find it quite impossible to preach its faith as the decisive reality of life, to expound it and to apply it to each new situation of man. In such a case, the situation of the individual with regard to the Church is somewhat like that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of an expert, even though he knows that this is not infallible. "There is no place, at any rate, in sermons and religious instruction for opinions contrary to such provisional doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, even though in certain circumstances the faithful should have the nature and the limited scope of such provisional pronouncements explained to them... The Christian who believes he has a right to his private opinion, that he already knows what the Church will only come to grasp later, must ask himself in sober self-criticism before God and his conscience, whether he has the necessary depth and breadth of theological expertise to allow his private theory and practice to depart from the present doctrine of the ecclesiastical authorities. The case is in principle admissible. But conceit and presumption will have to answer for their willfulness before the judgment-seat of God". Where may I find the 1967 pastoral letter of these "German bishops" from which the above was extracted? Is it available in English? If not, German O.K.

What is the history of periodically transferring parish priests? St. John Vianney was the *curé* (parish priest) of Ars until his death (18th cen.). Even today, priests in some rural parts of Mexico stay at their same parishes their entire lives. Yet, in the U.S. it is common practice to transfer priests every (approx.) 4 to 7 years or so. When did this practice begin? Why was it instituted?

So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this. I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine. I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss. Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief." When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer. While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – *not* just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?"

In old age due to dementia a person can become irritable and abusive, wholly unlike their prior self. As a married person will have taken vows to be faithful; what guidance is there to a spouse in the instance their partner becomes abusive? I bring up dementia as an example as the persons behaviour maybe completely outside of their own will. Does the Catholic Church have some sort of official guidelines on how to deal with these issues in mental health situations and/or pastoral care training for priests?

Demons and seemingly ancient manifestations are attacking me and I'm all alone and have no help and no family that believes in this effect I'm having. Even my Catholic father and Protestant mother. Nobody is there for me, and they renounced their faith in various ways and they never go to Church. I'm looking for refuge and looking across the United States for anything. Where can I go (ideas?) I need music to hear, my real true question. An app on the App Store or anything I can wear headphones or play without the internet. In all truth and honesty, the streaming aspect of Cellular networks and Wifi seems to cause more effect on my spirit and soul in a negative way because the demons of technology are AGAINST me. Please help me find a way to get offline and off the internet in a way that won't allow them to find me. HELP HELP HELP Pray God please have mercy on my soul. I said I want to "HELP PEOPLE", and the demon "HA" changed it to "HELL PEOPLE". I'm only a human, never a God, and they are vicious ancient spirits, and the only defense I can find is FM radio in some parts of the US that seems to work better than others. I'm living in hotels trying to find a place away from Cellular, Wifi, and GPS that allow the demons from hell to find me (I'm a good guy computer hacker and they attack me due to my interaction with Bitcoin). BEWARE of the spiritual trampoline of the internet shared with darkness, the resonance created is equal to the destruction of the this bridge but has spiritual properties that affect our soul. (s

Lately, the *Christian Post* uploaded several articles on the late beloved Pastor Chuck Smith. The reception was ambivalent. Some people said he was chosen by God to lead them, while others claimed he was on the other side of that spectrum. It is clear that he intended to live a Christian life and affected many people's lives positively. 1. Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why? 2. What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive? 3. Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony? 4. How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives? 5. Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?

Christians have lived through many major plagues, epidemics, and pandemics over the past two thousand years. Some of the most severe pandemics were the [Plague of Justinian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian) and the [Black Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death) , both of which are estimated to have possibly killed up to half of the population of Europe. There were also many smaller localised epidemics of plague, measles, smallpox, and others. What did Christian pastors and ministers teach during these times, to encourage and reassure their congregations? ----- *This is a special open-ended question that would not normally be allowed here, but during this current pandemic we feel it could be helpful. For more, see [this Meta discussion](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6894/6071).* *Lets please restrict this to past plagues, epidemics, and pandemics. Right now every man and his dog has something to say about COVID-19, and while some of it may pass the test of time and be recognised as inspired Godly wisdom, most won't.*

Catholic Bishops have been, from time to time, issuing a Pastoral Letter, often called simply a pastoral, which is an open letter addressed to the clergy and/or laity of a diocese, containing general admonitions, instructions, consolations or directions for behaviour in particular circumstances. Each letter would be read on a designated date in all churches across the diocese. One is curious to know as to why the Pope does not issue such letters, in spite of the fact that information technology has enabled us to download any letter issued by the Vatican, in any part of the world and to have read it out in churches on a designated date. In fact, such letters would go a long way in guiding the clergy and the faithful alike on different issues of importance. My question therefore, is : Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals to all churches across the globe?

Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit sick parishioners and deliver them communion? I don't know, but I think it's pretty cool that Catholics have this sort of pastoral care built into their system, and I am wondering whether or not non-Catholics do a similar sort of thing where the priest/pastor/minister would visit the sick parishioners or congregants and give them communion because the sick individuals could not come to Mass but would nevertheless like to receive the Eucharist. What other denominations do this?

The Bible speaks to the qualifications of overseers and deacons, and also mentions that they are to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation. What Biblical basis exists, then, for the disqualification of those who are called to shepherd? Specifically, how to these align with the Biblical doctrines of repentance and forgiveness (if, say, a leader was repentant and sought forgiveness over a sin)?