Posted on 05/31/2005 4:16:22 PM PDT by NYer
Most of you have seen the picture of a priest baptizing a naked baby by dipping its butt into a baptismal "pool". It constituted a thread here on FR and we all wondered where this had taken place.
The full story appeared today in The Wanderer. Here it is, hand transcribed.
ROCHESTER, N.Y. - The Diocese of Rochester’s Sacred Heart Cathedral, which Bishop Matthew Clark insists is the model for Catholic worship for the entire diocese, was the setting for a bizarre baptismal ritual of questionable validity on Pentecost Sunday, as Rainbow Sashers received Communion.
Sometimes known as The Coalition in Defense of Church Teaching, the Ushers of the Eucharist, Rochester chapter, encountered more than they bargained for.
Members of the Rainbow Sash had warned the nation that they were storming the cathedrals and churches to protest the “homophobic” Pope Benedict XVI, to defy Catholic doctrine, and to commit sacrilege in the process. However, Rochester’s local chapter was very low key this year, although members had been welcomed at Sacred Heart Cathedral for the last four years with their red, blue, green, yellow, and orange sashes wrapped around their shoulders and waists.
Upon entry to the cathedral atrium prior to the 9:30am Mass, an Usher of the Eucharist, Rochester encountered the head usher, Mr. Stevenson (city councilman), and Fr. Murphy and stated he was looking for Rainbow Sashers. He was promptly told they had not been seen nor heard from.
Curiously, Charled Mudge, leader of the Rochester Chapter of Rainbow Sash (as well as Dignity), was sitting in a chair (chairs replaced all pews during the “wreckovation” designed by Albany priest Richard Vosko) in the cathedral with his sash proudly displayed.
Mudge pops up every year at this time to exhibit his talents for defying Church teaching with the blessing of Bishop Clark and the priests and staff of Sacred Heart Cathedral, and so lay Catholic observers were ready with their cameras and video-recorders to document the event.
Fr. Joseph Marcoux, a recent graduate of the American College at Louvain, the diocese’s “poster boy” for vocations, as well as an activist for gay rights in the Church, was in front of the new baptismal font with three families preparing them for the Baptisms of their infants.
Some kind of preparatory liturgy was performed at 9:30am, when Mass was scheduled to start. It was a joyous gathering with much inclusion of those observing from their chairs.
Mass began and after the offertory, Fr. Marcoux marched to the large baptismal font (which looks like an overdone sauna) near the front doors, and proceeded to start a strange baptismal ritual for three infants.
Fr. Marcoux took each of the naked babies from each mother’s arms and carried the infants naked one after another to the “pools of living waters”.
At that point, individually, each one of the naked infants’ backsides was dipped into the water three times, while Fr. Marcoux called out in sequence to each dip of the backside, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
It appears the “forward-looking” Diocese of Rochester has invented its own form of Baptism.
This reporter turned to an off duty priest who happened to be standing near and said: “Father, that is not a valid Baptism.” The priest responded: “Yes it is, it is an immersion, how do we know how Jesus was baptized?”
I followed up laughing, saying that what we had just witnessed was not an immersion; we had witnessed the dipping of infants’ bottoms.
Fr. Marcoux then proceeded to read further from a book he had with him related to the scenario we had just witnessed. He then went to each infant and poured an excessive amount of water over their heads (they were in their mother’s arms at this point, naked but wrapped in a white towel). However, Fr. Marcoux said absolutely nothing while doing this, which is confirmed by the video-audiotape.
He then massaged the water into their heads and then kissed the infants individually.
A “liturgy” followed which included some illicit rubrics by Fr. Marcoux, including lifting a four inch diameter host high over his head and breaking it in two for crumbs to spill everywhere, and adding at the end of the Agnus Dei, “Welcome to the banquet of love.”
At Communion time, Mudge, in his Rainbow Sash, left his chair to proceed to the Communion line. This reporter approached him and stated: “Mr. Mudge, you should not do this. It is an insult to the Holy Father, a sacrilege and a political attack on Church teaching.”
Immediately, Tom Riley (a local ferryboat entrepreneur, whose business involved shttling gay cruises from Rochester to Toronto), and his wife Barbara Kelly (a PR specialist with Bausch & Lomb, and leader of the cathedral wreckovation committees), rose and pushed me aside, and stepped in front of Mudge. I did not push back but continued in the Communion line.
Fr. Marcoux was giving Communion on the right and a female extraordinary minister next to him was giving Communion for our line. We were all in the middle aisle. Fr. Marcoux leaned over to the extraordinary minister and advised her as we were approaching them. I raised my arms and informed the extraordinary minister and Fr. Marcoux that a “political protest and attack on Church teaching was behind me. Don’t give Communion to Rainbow Sash.”
Fr. Marcoux ignored me and the extraordinary minister blinked and her eyes went blank.
I moved aside to take pictures if necessary, but was blocked by staff and Riley.
Tom and his wife, Barbara, left the Communion line in front of Mudge, but positioned themselved fore and aft of Charles as they walked to their seats; nevertheless, I was able to photograph Charlie in his sash, Barbara in front of him and Tom following as they moved away after receiving Communion. However, the staff and the husband/wife team were paying so much attention to me that our video camera man got the whole scenario from the “Baptisms” to the reception of Communion by Mudge with his sash clearly wrapped around him.
Selling spoke of his expectation that the Church will approve of homosexual sodomy.
Considering this comment was made 8 years ago, before the sexual abuse crisis broke in the MSM, we can now see how much this sub culture has cost the church, financially and emotionally. It will take time to sweep these kooks out from under their rugs but it is happening. Some of us will have to wait a bit longer and may not live to see the reforms bound to take place in our own dioceses. I have every faith and confidence that the worst is behind us.
I agree if you'll read my whole post. I was referring to minor details. That is what I read. That may apply only in cases of emergency (imminent death).
In this case the errors seem too great, as it seems he didn't even say "baptize". I also didn't see anything about the renunciation of Satan.
I have a friend who is a priest, and his concern of the church is the "gay" issue. His biggest fear is that we will eventually go the way the Episcopal church has, with the election of Gene Robinson.
I am hopeful, and prayerful, that this will never take place.
I do though worry about the future, but am also gladdened to see more and more younger Catholics becoming more conservative in their faith. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is turning things around after the American Catholic Church being so fuzzy headed over the years.
Gross!
With a bunch of Rainbow Sashers about, he'd better!
Thank you for posting that thread listing the "gay friendly" churches. I printed the California list. I was nodding as I read the parish names. Yep, they all fit the bill.
Huh?
This appears to be the m.o. of sooo many bishops here in PA as well. A beautiful church about an hours drive away became a 'prototype' of sorts of the renovations about 15 yrs ago. (And, btw, why do the bishops race to replace beautiful carved wooden doors and gorgeous stained glass windows with full, clear glass doors reminiscent of dept stores?) They had a big fundraiser. Everyone was full of anticipation. It was stripped bare. Statues removed (a few later replaced). The stations of the Cross were all painted over a nice pale taupe color. When it was done it had all the beauty of a subway, all concrete and gray with clear glass and no adornments. Just some modern art and plants. I take that back, though, I've been in nicer subways! Parishioners complained and petitioned Rome. These were labelled 'troublemakers'. The Parish lost a number of members. Then our bishop and theirs held this church out to all other local parishes as an 'example'. Dissenters are not tolerated.
"... that the falling water makes a nice sound."
It isn't a nice sound if you are elderly and have a spastic bladder.
Our modernist pastor places a water filled galvanized hog trough with a recirculating pump into the sancuary during every Easter Season so that he can do immersion Baptisms.
It drives some of the old folks crazy.
What degree of immersion is practiced in the Orthodox rite of baptism? Must the head get wet? Is the infant fully (but very briefly) immersed?
Make no mistake, these people exist for one reason alone. To tear down Christ's established earthly Church. They are only focused on themselves, not the Eternal Word of God.
They want to have their way and if they can't, then they will burn down Heaven in protest.
This makes me sick.
Fully immersion is the standard for all baptisms. However, due to quite reasonable safety concerns, infants are often immersed in the following manner: they are first placed in the baptismal font and supported with their heads held out of the water. The priest then scoops water to fully annoint the head while intoning "I baptize you in the Name of the Father." The child is then pulled from the font, lifted high and then returned for the blessings to the Son and again for the Holy Spirit.
To answer your question, the head must be fully wet.
Thanks. Unlike y'all Orthodox, I have never been nekkid in church. I trust you make the most of the opportunity. 8-)
"Evil" is the absence of something good from its proper place. The "good" in this example SHOULD be proper immersion (i.e., pouring upon the head, not "dipping").
These "baptisms", in my opinion, would fall under the category of "evil", since they violate the "good" procedure established since before Christ Himself was baptised on earth. This would be akin to administering the sacrament of Confession over the Internet, or delivering the Communion wafer with flavors like sour cream 'n' onion.
Ugh. I hate dragging out this word, but it's vaguely "demonic". Almost like a black mass. A perversion of the sacrament based on personal preference instead of upholding Tradition.
Pope John Paul II, in his last published book, wrote that "evil" is often found in situations where there is an apparent "good", however, there is one or more element askew, thereby making it evil. e.g., false visionaries and "miraculous" sites that produce apparently great fruit, but then a message comes along praising Allah or Buddah (or something along those lines).
The Rainbow Sash dude(tte) is kind of like the icing on the heretical cake. They could probably throw a tent over it and have a clown -- wait, that's already been done.
Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Who can remember that far back?
The lack of cajones on the part of local bishops has created a situation where the laity are more and more being compelled to point out heresy where it occurs. The 'remnant' are consolidating at traditional parishes (if geographically feasible) and those places are thriving while the "American" parishes wither on the vine.
Think of it as a heavenly pruning. God is allowing this. He's allowing the scandals and the local heresies as a means of forcing the "debate" (which He will win). His faithful flock is growing in strength if not number. Christ, it has been said, has become like a beggar in the tabernacle, waiting and hoping for souls to come to Him because of the IMMENSE amount of grace present in the Blessed Sacrament. So, while the faithful are being fed a feast of fortitude and wisdom, the cafeteria brigade is busy eating their homecooked lukewarm porridge instead of partaking in the heavenly banquet at the altar.
There but for the grace of God go I...
A subjective and entirely personal approach to Church doctrine on sexual ethics is inevitably reproduced in other areas and leads to liturgical and sacramental improvisation.
Thus, if I can decide what is and what is not sexually permissible, I can also decide how a baptism should be performed.
God understands. He gives me room to place my personal imprint on things of the Church.
Coleus,Bump.
Have at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.