mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (11/02/90)
Please pardon my dwelling on this topic -- it is hardly one of those
matters important to our living in Christ, at our Lord's command.
But it nags at my historical and theological consciousness, and I
can hope that reflecting on it *may* provide some perspective on the
more serious issues confronting Christians.
First, the conception that non-Christians *can* baptize is of fairly
respectable antiquity (but late as patristic data goes, and entirely
Western -- which may tend to explain why the Orthodox do not accept
this turn of thought). The (older) Catholic Encycolpedia notes:
"The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees:
'The Sacrament of Baptism... no matter by whom conferred is
available to salvation.' St. Isidore of Seville ... declares
'The Spirit of God adminsters the grace of baptism, although
it be a pagan who does the baptizing.' Pope Nicholas I
teaches the Bulgarians (Resp. 104) that baptism by a Jew or
a pagan is valid."
There are continuing later statements (from Florence, e.g.). But these
already strike me as somewhat discordant with earlier statements. In
Tertullian, there is an affirmation that the laity may baptize, "speaking
of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: 'He will be
guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely
can.'" This doesn't *contradict* pagan baptism, but it needs to be seen
in Tertullian's context, which ordinarily *restricts* baptism to be the
office of the bishop, or in his absence the priest (then heirarchically
on down to deacons, laymen and even -- failing any better minister :-)
-- to women.
There is a statement in Jerome, however, that comes very close to my
own "sense" of the matter (Adv. Lucif. IX), 'In case of necessity, we
know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a
person receives, so may he give.' That final clause cannot bear any
reasonable interpretation unless Jerome is *assuming* a baptized person
as minister. I do not *reject* the Catholic theory of this sacrament,
but like Jerome I *operate* under the assumption that Christians bring
others into our (extant) community.
The Roman sacramental theory on this is that if the "matter" (water)
and "form" ('I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit') are correct, and the *intent* is what the Church intends in
its normal baptisms, the sacrament is valid. My Episcopalian (high
church) informants give me the same theory and so are unsure whether
the BCP restriction is simply a rubrical one or constitutes underlying
doctrine; I have not (yet :-)) found anything on our library shelves
that indicates whether or not we *have* a determinate position here.
It is interesting that in Lutheran/Roman ecumenical dialog on this
issue, *some* Lutherans adopt the Roman theory about form and matter
and intent, but some also take the position that the minister must be
Christian. I wonder whether the Anglican position might not be equally
indeterminate.
Now, about practice. I haven't explored Roman casuistical works, but
the encyclopedias suggest to me that the main "use" of this doctrine
is in the context of fatal childbirth with a midwife or physician who
is not Christian. Such a person could be instructed (by the mother,
for example) to perform a baptism as both mother and child are dying.
This *is* a possible scenario (notably, in the Spain of Isidore or
in the Bulgarian case). I would be interested to know if any other
scenarios suggest themselves to s.r.c. readers.
One reason this whole thread is so silly, however, is that Rome does
NOT "really" accept baptisms even by Protestants, let alone by pagans.
If the "intent" in Protestant baptisms is questionable, how can it
even be seriously suggested that a pagan intends what the Church does?
The suspicions about Protestant baptism express themselves (usually)
in *conditionally* baptizing converts to Catholicism, not in "absolute"
baptism, normally -- so at least there is a formal acknowledgment that
the former baptism *may* have been OK (but in view of the theory above
that admission amounts to *very* little!) Let me cite the Catholic
Encyclopedias. First, the New C.E.
"In 1570 Pius V recognized Calvinist Baptism, but there has
been a less favorable view toward Protestant Baptism in the
Church since that time. Except when one is absolutely certain,
by knowing the minister, his doctrinal positions, and liturgical
practice, that the Baptism is not doubtful, the practice today
is to rebaptize conditionally."
The (older) C.E. gives a more expansive statement of the doubts:
"the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy
of their baptism has been called into question owing to the
separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pro-
nounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists,
Unitarians, and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and
hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accur-
ately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion
or sprinkling, and it may reasonably be doubted whether the
water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Epis-
copalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and
to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a
well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in
its administration..."
In case it is not obvious, the "reasonable doubts" above amount to a
rather blanket unwillingness to accept baptism by other denominations
of Christians. If a Catholic is expected to have a "well-grounded
fear" of Episcopalian baptisms, I cannot see *any* practical case in
which a pagan baptism could be even remotely conceived to have been
of a proper "intent." By contrast, the apparently stricter position
of the Episcopalians (*only* a baptized Christian may baptize) turns
out to be in practice a basic acceptance of the practice of others,
so long as they do in fact baptize by water in the name of the Trinity.
--
Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each
m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress,
...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we
standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Theecathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.04.06.55.1990.4539@porthos.rutgers.edu> mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > > [various references on RC allowence of non-Christians to validly > administer baptism] > >One reason this whole thread is so silly, however, is that Rome does >NOT "really" accept baptisms even by Protestants, let alone by pagans. >If the "intent" in Protestant baptisms is questionable, how can it >even be seriously suggested that a pagan intends what the Church does? > >The suspicions about Protestant baptism express themselves (usually) >in *conditionally* baptizing converts to Catholicism, not in "absolute" >baptism, normally -- so at least there is a formal acknowledgment that >the former baptism *may* have been OK (but in view of the theory above >that admission amounts to *very* little!) Let me cite the Catholic >Encyclopedias. First, the New C.E. What then follows are a couple of quotes from the C.E. (various versions) that don't match my experience with the rite in recent times. The current rite for adult converts (called the RCIA, or Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) is *quite* clear about separating the Sacraments being conferred. It has to be -- the Easter Vigil has so much going on that it would be completely overwhelming otherwise. The direction in the RCIA text is that Christians are *not* to be rebaptised. (Anybody got a better reference than that? Mine is on a moving van somewhere in the eastern third of the US. :-) ) At the vigil, there are four groups of Catachumens included in the rite: a) "candidates for Baptism, Communion and Confirmation" (non-Christians) b) "candidates for Communion and Confirmation" (non-Catholic Christians) c) "candidates for Confirmation" (adult Catholic confirmands) d) "candidates for Baptism" (infants) The way the Vigil service is set up is that after the homily, groups a) and d) are baptized, and then groups a), b) and c) are confirmed. At Communion time, the Catachumens receive Communion first, often with their sponsors. All this gets pretty wild, especially with a coupl'a' dozen Catachumens, but the explanations of who is who are all part of the rite itself. The distinctions are all there, and "conditional rebaptism" is *not* part of the default rite in the book. (I guess what I'm arguing here is that the misselette-in-the-pew is a better indicator of Catholic practice than the Catholic Encyclopedia.) Like I said, all my references are on a moving van, so anybody with access to the RCIA text might want to look it up there. Also, I'd be interested in hearing from anybody with experience of Catholics not accepting the baptisms of Protestant converts. (What diocese was it?) cathy :-) -- Cathy Fasano cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet "The Church and the World are jammed to the rafters these days with people willing to get involved, get their hands dirty, take risks, make sacrifices, hurl themselves at spears, lead the advance, inspire, illuminate, encourage, organize and manage great affairs. I find most such folks insufferable, even if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Where are the people willing to sit on the sidelines and find fault?" -- Michael O. Garvey
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/06/90)
Mike Siemon writes: >In case it is not obvious, the "reasonable doubts" above amount to a >rather blanket unwillingness to accept baptism by other denominations >of Christians. Well, I read things a bit differently, and the clue for me is the catholicity (as it were) of the specific objections. All of these complaints are of the "was it done right" category. The same objections can be raised about *any* baptism, RC or protestant. This is particularly obvious in the Presbyterian and the Anglican objections. Even in RC practice there's no requirement that your underwear must get soaked; having grown up presby, I don't see how they can honestly think that a person can be baptized by sprinkling and not get water on them. The objection about anglican theology is even more suspect. Perhaps this suspicion made some sense in the days of latitudinarianism; it doesn't make sense today, and it's an equal peril with the RC church. What we have here is propagandizing. If RC and anglican positions here are to be compared, by theology the two communions should have the same rules (modulo the possible additional anglican restriction about ministers, which doesn't figure here). The difference, it seems to me, is basically politics. And that seems to be what you get in practice. My experience is that the RC church will indeed push for a conditional baptism, but that if you are insistent, they will back off. An interesting twist here is that the putative anglican position is basically the same as the orthodox position, the difference being in the vision of what consititutes the church. -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/09/90)
Charley Wingate wrote:
grown up presby, I don't see how they can honestly think that a
person can be baptized by sprinkling and not get water on them. The
objection about
Just a clarification; the problem with aspersion is not whether you get
wet or not, it's whether the water flows or not. The water has to flow
for a valid Baptism. It makes sense, Catholic-wise, because a Sacrament
has to signify what it effects (in this case, the cleansing of a soul).
Joe Buehler