Posted on 04/13/2008 4:55:25 AM PDT by markomalley
|
Apr. 11, 2008 (CWNews.com) - On Easter Sunday, Bishop Robert Hennessey, a Boston auxiliary, celebrated Mass at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel parish. That was significant-- indeed the bishop's presence prompted a prominent headline story in the Boston Globe-- because officially that parish has been closed since 2004.
Some parishioners at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel have actively resisted the decision of the Boston archdiocese to shut down their church. Every Sunday they gather there for a prayer service. But no priest is assigned to the parish; that weekly service is not a Mass. Unless they are attending Sunday Mass elsewhere, then, the defiant parishioners holding these prayer vigils are violating a solemn precept of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2181) confirms the traditional teaching-- not changed by Vatican II, as many Catholics mistakenly believe-- that attendance at Sunday Mass is a serious obligation, and those "who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin." During his visit to the East Boston parish, Bishop Hennessey explained that his presence was an indication of pastoral concern. He made that concern evident when he admonished them:
It is my firm belief that what happens here on most Sundays is not a good thing, that it could even put your souls in peril. I'm here as your bishop to remind you of that. Perhaps the wording could have been better. The bishop's warning was based not merely on "my firm belief" but on the age-old and unchanging teaching of the universal Church. Still one can only admire Bishop Hennessey for voicing that message. He was fulfilling his role as a shepherd, bringing some corrective guidance to bear on a flock that had apparently gone astray. And what sort of response did the bishop's warning elicit? The Globe report cited one parishioner who "shook his head. 'I don't agree with that,' he said." Another sniffed that the bishop was "trying to scare us away," while yet another dismissed his warning as a matter of "politics."
Maybe the Globe reporter selected quotes only from those parishioners who expressed skepticism about the bishop's message. But I suspect the newspaper's story is an accurate portrayal of the reaction from that unusual congregation. The people of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel parish heard the bishop's words, weighed those words, and found them wanting. In fact:
"What he said was just his personal opinion," said Rita Grillo, 42, who lives across the street and has attended the church for 38 years. Now I wonder: In those 38 years, how often had Rita Grillo heard a priest defend the authority of Church teaching, and explain that some questions of faith and morals are not merely matters of personal opinion? For that matter, how many American Catholics recognize that the authority of Catholic doctrine is based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, and its accuracy is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Bishop Hennessey visited Our Lady of Mt. Carmel as a successor to the apostles. His message, in essence, was that the Lord Jesus expects them to attend Sunday Mass. The parishioners were delighted by his presence, the Globe relates; they recognized the bishop as a legitimate representative of the Boston archdiocese. But they did not recognize him as a teacher of divine truth. There are, of course, many Christians who do not recognize the authority of Catholic bishops to convey Christ's teaching authoritatively. Ordinarily these people are called Protestants. Over the course of the past generation, unfortunately, Americans have come to accept, almost reflexively, the stand taken by "cafeteria Catholics," who honor only those Church teachings with which they happen to agree.
That attitude is not genuinely Catholic. It is not even logically tenable. If Church teaching is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, then the Church is a corruptible human enterprise. But the Church claims to be a divine institution. If you cannot accept that claim, you cannot profess the Catholic faith. To embrace the authority of the Church requires an act of assent, a submission of the will, which can only be made when we are confident that the Church was founded, and her authority ensured, by the Incarnate God. Maybe the gift of faith is more precious and less common than we realize. |
Good article.
In the matter or baptism, one of the chief sacraments that you say imparts grace, is there any practice at all of immersion in lieu of sprinkling in any Catholic community that anyone knows of? Immersion seems to be the New Testament pattern and that practiced by the primitive Church - why and how did this get changed to sprinkling? If it is official Catholic protocol to sprinkle, where is this written and how is this derived? How is this contrived practice of sprinkling reconciled with the practice of immersion that Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostles demonstrated? (I'm already anticipating the Old vs. New Covenant responses.)
Secondly, regarding priestly attire, where is there any reference to the apparently technical protocol involving what the priests wear and on what occasions? Can any rite be performed, i.e. baptism, Mass, etc, without priestly garb? If not, why and what is your reasoning? This question flows from my first, since if baptism can be performed by immersion, what does the "baptizer" wear?
Actually, there are a number of Catholic Churches that have baptismal pools (mostly of either fairly recent construction or of quite ancient origin)
And, one other minor point, Catholics don't "sprinkle." (Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.)
Rather, the key element is that water must flow. The word "baptizo" means simply to wash (in the context of the scriptures, it often means a ritual washing). For example, in Luke 11:38, "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.", the word "wash" is "baptizo."
The archetype used by many non-Catholics to make the claim that immersion is the only valid form of baptism comes from the account of Christ's baptism in the Jordan. But an examination of the accounts, both in Matthew and in John, merely state that Christ went into the river with John the Baptizer and that John the Baptizer washed (baptizo) him. They do not state that John dunked Him, that Christ leaned back into the water, held by John, or whether John poured water over Christ's head. Any further interpretation than "washed" falls into the realm of private interpretation.
The early Church (first century AD type) practiced the following:
1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm.
3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
(From the Didache, circa AD 70, Chap 7)
(Having said all of this, my personal belief is that baptism in a pool is far superior, from a theological, catechetical, perspective than through infusion. Both are equally valid, sacramentally, but immersion really brings home the lesson from Romans 6. I wish more Catholic Churches would have baptismal pools installed)
Secondly, regarding priestly attire, where is there any reference to the apparently technical protocol involving what the priests wear and on what occasions?
Good question. Yes there is. There are a number of different articles that make up a Latin-rite priest's vestments. Each article has a different meaning.
So yes, there is a protocol.
Can any rite be performed, i.e. baptism, Mass, etc, without priestly garb?
The Mass should be performed in all of the above. However, I have seen situations where it's not. Such as a military chaplain in the field.
The baptism, outside of Mass, I have seen done with the priest just wearing the alb, cincture, and stole.
Confession is usually heard with the priest simply wearing the stole (or a smaller, portable, ribbon version of it).
Annointing of the sick likewise is done with just the stole (or miniature) being worn.
Having said the above, the real critical item is the stole. But valid sacraments could be ministered with the minister just wearing his clerical street garments, or in extremis, in lay attire.
If not, why and what is your reasoning? This question flows from my first, since if baptism can be performed by immersion, what does the "baptizer" wear?
The baptizer would wear an alb. The baptizee (neophyte) would be clothed in an alb afterwards, as well.
Thanks for asking.
Kolo, NYer, perhaps one/both could advise on the Eastern Church equivalent (as I am NO expert on that)
******************
The Baptisms I have observed have all involved pouring.
www.orthodox.clara.net/parish_archive_2006.htm
For adults, in our parish, we use a metal watering trough. It actually looks pretty good!
I can't add much from the Eastern Catholic perspective. The baptismal font 'disappeared' from our Church about 10 years ago. Since then, the priest, vested in white alb and stole, has baptized the catechumens using a bowl and pitcher.
A baptismal font works just fine :-).
As for vestments, the following article provides a good historical background.
He was a cute as a button little 6 year old.
The priest called him up and asked him if he knew his prayers.
Nothing like the honesty of little ones. He said I know some of 'em.
The priest asked him to say the Gloria, which he did perfectly.
He had a bit of a problem with his Our Father though.
Our Father,
Who art in Heaven.
How are you?
Mark has already given you an excellent answer to your whole post - I just wanted to comment on the "sprinkling" aspect. In my experience, many people unfamiliar with the Church see the sprinkling of water on Easter as a form of the sacrament of Baptism - it is not. The water follows the renewal of the vows we all take, or ones which are made on our behalf, at our own Baptism. It is simply a reminder, since the sacrament places an indelible mark on our Soul - it cannot be redone. So, if on Easter you see a Catholic Priest sprinkling Holy Water on the people, it is not a Baptism - it is a reminder of our original Baptism. Hope that helps!
And, one other minor point, Catholics don't "sprinkle." (Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.)
You're correct, Catholics don't "sprinkle". The first leader of the Roman Church to authorize sprinkling* or pouring* in baptism was Pope Stephen III. This happened when he had to flee from his enemies in Rome and seek protection in France in the eight century (about 750 AD). The first law that favored sprinkling* or pouring* was put forth by the Council of Ravenna in 1311 AD. This council used the word “affusion” and stated that it was equal to baptism and replaced immersion. Notice the asterick placed behind the words above; they were actually used in what was said. The word "affusion" was used by the Council of Ravenna to mean the same as "Baptizo." But "sprinkling" was not really done at that time. The infant's body was totally immersed up to the head, whereupon water was "poured" on the head to wet it, simulating an immersion. "Sprinkling," when done, was accomplished when the cleric dipped (baptized) his hand in the water and "dribled" it on the head of the infant.
Rather, the key element is that water must flow. The word "baptizo" means simply to wash (in the context of the scriptures, it often means a ritual washing). For example, in Luke 11:38, "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.", the word "wash" is "baptizo."
I don't know where you got your information for saying the above, but it is not what was, or is, taught by the authorities of the RCC. First of all, if "baptizo" simply means to "wash," then one could substitute that word for every occurance of the term "baptizo" or its derivatives. Of course, that would be ridiculous, for it would change the real meaning of the passage involved.
Tertullian, about 200 AD, is the first of the early writers who quoted from this early Latin version instead of from the original Greek. In his work On Baptism, Chapter XIII, he quotes Matthew 28:19 (The Great Commission). “Go teach the nations, tinguentes (immersing) them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the same writings, Chapter XI, he quoted John 4:2 this way: “And yet He did not tinguebat (immerse), but his disciples.” In the topic, On Baptism, Chapter XIV, he quotes I Cor. 1:17 thusly: “For Christ sent me not to tinguendum (immerse),” etc. In Chapter XX of the same work he quotes Mark 1:5 as “Were tinguebantur (immersed) confessing their sins.” In Chapter XVI, he quotes Luke 12:50, which refer to Jesus’ baptism of suffering. “I have to be tinguebantur (immersed) with an immersion (baptisma),” etc. Cyprian, writing around 255 AD, also quotes from the Old Latin Version. Like Tertullian, he also quotes Matthew 28:19, and uses the same word, “tinguentes,” for “baptizing.” This quote appears in his Epistle XXV, and also in Epistle LXIII. In his Epistle XXV he quotes Gal. 3:27—“As many of you as were tinctiestis (immersed) into Christ, have put on Christ.” (Quotes, Chapter 10, pages 84–86.)
Clement (writing around the close of the first century AD) who was quoted in the book, Fragment from Eusebius, Book IV., page 62—“A Christian is one who knows God, who believes in Christ, who possesses the grace of God, and who has been dipped in the sacred laver (i.e., baptistery).” Clement wrote in the Greek language and the word “dipped” is “baptizmos.”
Athanasius (born around 296 AD) in his Sermon on the Passover, V, wrote: “In these benefits thou was immersed (baptizmos), O newly-enlightened; the initiation into the grace, O newly-enlightened, has become to thee an earnest of resurrection; thou has the immersion (baptizo) as a surety of the abode in heaven. Thou did imitate, in the sinking down, the burial of the Master; but thou did rise again from thence, before works, witnessing the work of the resurrection.”
The Fourth Council of Toledo, AD 633, decreed: "For shunning the schism or the use of an heretical practice, we observe a single immersion in baptism. Nor do they who immerse three times appear to us to approve of the claim of heretics, although they follow their custom (of trine-immersion). And that no one may doubt the propriety of this single sacrament, let him see that it is the death and resurrection of Christ shown forth. For the immersion in the waters is a descent, as it were, into the grave; and, again, the emersion from the waters is a resurrection. Likewise he may see displayed in it the unity of the Deity and the Trinity of persons - the unity whilst we immerse once, and the Trinity whilst we baptize int the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The above quotes are Catholic! They are the teachings that should be taught in the church today! One more to show you: The second Council of Calcuith, AD 816, Eleventh Canon - "Let Bishops know that when they administer batpism they ought not to pour the consecrated water upon the infants' heads, but let them always be immersed in the (baptismal) pool; as the Son of God himself afforded an example unto all believers when he was immersed in the river Jordan."
No, Catholics should not sprinkle, much less pour water on the head of a person in the place of immersion. I recommend that those interested in much more information on this topic get the book, "Church Doctrines: Right or Wrong? (You Decide)," and study it closely. The author does a terrific job in bringing out the historical usage of the act and backs it up with the Scriptures. It also examines many other aspects of "Church Doctrines."
No, washing is not the meaning of the term "baptizo" by any means. Can you imagine reading Romans 6:3-4 as follows: "Or don't you know that all of us who were 'washed' (baptized) into Christ Jesus were 'washed' (baptized) into his death? We were therefore buried with him through 'washing' (baptism) into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." That would be ridiculous, right? Now, try to substitute "pouring" for the word "baptism"! That also would be ridiculous, right?
Mark, innovation was added to the rite of baptism very early in Christianity. Not just by the Latin rite, but by almost all churches at that time. Some remained pure to the teachings of the Apostles as they wrote in the Scriptures, but as time when by, powerful philosophers turned Christian introduced many innovations into their teachings, such as we find in the Didache and other writings. One can trace these actions via a study of religious history. In fact, some denominations, especially among Evangelicals, do away with baptism totally, putting it in a position of "if it helps an individual to feel better, baptize that one in one of the methods that one prefers."
I'm glad to see that you agree that it was immersion that was the original meaning of the term. Don't you think that all churches should get back to the rite as it was originally done? It sure would help unify Christians.
God bless you for your attitude.
FYI, Yes, there are RCCs that immerse a person according to the action portrayed in the Scritpures. In fact, it is an option in all RCCs for an adult who converts to that denomination of Christianity. In parts of the world, even infants are immersed totally by the RCC. I personally know of a sect (although not the name) of the RCC (or so they claim) who don't baptize infants. They catechise them before allowing them to be baptized, thusly, they say, infants are not baptized. In reading one of their pamphlets that was sent to me by a friend overseas, they say that they are at the forefront to restore the meaning of baptism to its original place in the church.
Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man. Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with G-d. Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the House of G-d had first to immerse in a mikvah. On Yom Kippur, the holiest of all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, If we seek to understand water immersion (baptism in the Greek)
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
as practiced by John the Immerser, we need to understand the
Jewish culture of Mikvah at the time of Yah'shua. Mikvah
The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden, Adam sat in a river that flowed from the garden.
This was an integral part of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his original perfection.
In the desert, the famed "well of Miriam" served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his sons'
induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.
the innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.
This was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services, each of which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.
from chabad.org
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.