Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:To which Greyface replied:
However the idea of a lay person doing a baptism against the explicit decision of the local priest needs to be commented on: this is a direct act of rebellion against church order, and the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her that it will result in their excommunication - or at least should, if the bishop has any understanding of their responsibility.
quote:Which didn't come as a surprise, but has made me think it through a bit further. The logic which I've found to underpin my initial intuition is as follows: the sacraments - baptism and communion - are the work of the church as a collective body, not the possession of an individual. To the extent that you are a member of a specific church, your doing the sacraments must be in accord with that church's understanding - the sacraments being what it is to be a church. Whilst it may be legitimate to do a hole in the wall baptism if your church has no view on the matter, once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part. Therefore by carrying out the baptism, or actively participating in it, you are resigning from your congregation; the statement of 'excommunication' is merely a reflection of the reality of what you have done.
I'm astonished you think priests should have this power given your position on Holy Tradition. On the precise question of Church order, I took no oaths to obey priests when I was confirmed nor did my parents and godparents take oaths on my behalf to do so when I was baptised. I am not in holy orders. It's vanishingly unlikely that I would ever be asked to baptise someone against the wishes of the parish priest, and it's even more unlikely that I would be unable to find a way out of the problem by spreading the net a little wider than one denomination and one parish, but if push came to shove I would act according to my conscience, not the orders of one priest.
quote:Free indeed - and have done so many times. Sharing bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus? Yes indeed.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. How terrifying. People holding Eucharistic celebrations in their own houses. It'd be like the New Testament!
quote:Well, yeah, if you were a memorialist, it wouldn't. But then an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either
quote:(my emphasis)
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whilst it may be legitimate to do a hole in the wall baptism if your church has no view on the matter, once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.
quote:Except that in virtually all denominations, laypeople are explicitly not allowed to preside at the Eucharist, while in virtually all denominations, laypeople are explicitly allowed to baptize. The validity of baptism as a sacrament is not believed to depend on the person baptizing being in valid orders. e.g., the Roman Catholic Church recognizes people baptized by someone who is not an RC priest as being baptized.
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest
quote:Disagree. Doing communion at home, no clergy anywhere in sight, is what turned me from memorialist to "there is something spiritual going on!" But the fact that the something spiritual goes on at my hand (and other lay hands) is proof enough that you don't have to be ordained to be effective. :-)
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ender's Shadow:quote:an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest.
quote:But is a priest even empowered to say "This child should not be baptised" (as opposed to "I don't intend to baptise this child")?
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I know of at least one case where a priest refused baptism because the parents were unmarried - this despite the fact that he regularly offers communion to two prominent members of the church choir who are not only unmarried but in a state of flagrant adultery.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's extremely rare, as far as I know, for baptism to be refused.
quote:At least one semi-famous historical example comes to mind where someone should've said "Hey, don't do this baptism!".
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But is a priest even empowered to say "This child should not be baptised" (as opposed to "I don't intend to baptise this child")?
I hope not. It would seem to be passing the keys of the kingdom from St Peter to the local vicar. I didn't think even Popes claimed this sort of power ...
quote:Indeed. I'm quite content with congregations having their rules about who can officiate at a communion service held under the auspices of that denomination, but in the same way that I don't expect the CofE to come down on me like a ton of bricks if I receive communion at some house church somewhere at the hands of someone who makes no claim to be part of any apostolic succession (not that that's particularly likely), I would not expect that they should have a problem if it were to happen in my house, as long as I wasn't claiming it was an Anglican Eucharist service.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:Disagree. Doing communion at home, no clergy anywhere in sight, is what turned me from memorialist to "there is something spiritual going on!" But the fact that the something spiritual goes on at my hand (and other lay hands) is proof enough that you don't have to be ordained to be effective. :-)
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ender's Shadow:quote:an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest.
Of course, it also disproves the limited concept of apostolic succession endorsed by churches that use that term, or anyway disproves that only people in the "apostolic succession" line can be spiritually effective this way.
As to Real Presence, I prefer "something spiritual" to making a declaration that cannot be shown true or false as to exactly what the "something spiritual" is. Although I'm sure some will say "most be negative spirituality, God is not allowed to bless anything the church disapproves of." Such a limited God we have?
quote:In case #3 (adopted child of lesbians), I can very much understand why this would turn people off and think it's abhorrent.
Originally posted by balaam:
Try talking to parents who's child has been refused baptism about you faith and it becomes very clear how much damage has been done.
quote:And, with the intent to do what the Church does, which in extremis, let's in baptism by non-Christians, Deo gratias.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest. So long as it's done with water and in the name of the Trinity.
quote:I hope it won't be read as tedious nitpicking to opine that no one has a complete theological picture. This is as true of the holy mysteries of the eucharist as it is of holy baptism. I'll risk even further to say that, perhaps, trust in Christ is the complete theological picture.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The person baptized is baptized even by a lay Christian and IMO even one who only trusts in Christ without a complete theological picture.
quote:You may hardly need to comment on the first, but it was quite the hot topic for a time. Pope Innocent III even had to go so far as to address the forced baptism of Jewish adults on four separate occasions.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Importing a question from an adjacent thread probably works best when enough of a context is either imported, too, or confected, providing some sort of case to work with.
Here, all we have is: The parish priest won't do it, with no accompanying detail. So, the answers can run across the map from:
1. the priest won't baptize the kidnapped child of Jewish parents to
2. the priest won't baptize the child because the parents are a same-sex couple.
I hardly need comment on the first, while I would personally baptize the second in a New York minute.
quote:A lot of people seem to have, lurking under their atheism, some kind of spiritual longing. It's really an agnosticism. Some of my atheist friends were reared on a cold, cruel God looking for excuses to reject people and send them to hell. But they were also reared that babies have to be baptized -- not that long ago unbaptized babies in many denominations were considered "unsaved."
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the first two cases (non-believers), I'm not sure why the parents would be so turned off. Can you explain a bit more the ways in which they felt damaged?
quote:My phrase "apostolic successionist, Real Presence believer" was a bit of short hand for a very traditional, Catholic believer for whom the clear line of laying-on-of-hands is a very precise matter. Obviously there are folks such as yourself who by experience have found other definitions.
Of course, it also disproves the limited concept of apostolic succession endorsed by churches that use that term, or anyway disproves that only people in the "apostolic succession" line can be spiritually effective this way.
quote:Isn't this a rather draconian response? When my sister was doing her nurse's training the entire class were taught how to baptise babies unlikely to live. The class included Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and atheists.
the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her [the person doing the baptising] that it will result in their excommunication
quote:which puts a different slant on the matter.
once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.
quote:This is a good point. But if both the priest and the parents took a "my way or the highway" attitude on a private baptism, I'd feel for the child. Essentially, the poor thing would wind up like the putative half a baby before Solomon in regards to its Christian journey. This is why I disagree with Ender's Shadow's excommunication. The baptismal water becomes bathwater flung away with the baby in the mix. (How's that for mixing baby metaphors?
I am thinking the priest would have problem with this because it is a community of faith ceremony, not a private affair. It should be done in the context of the congregation, where any member may attend if they so chose.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
quote:Thanks for that link. In response to world protest of the Church's actions in the case of Edgardo Levi Mortara, Pius IX said: "I could care less less what the world thinks." I can imagine the vicar mentioned in the OP sputtering exactly the same words, with great pride and with a firm conviction that he is defending Truth, while gleefully sticking it to "the world."
At least one semi-famous historical example comes to mind where someone should've said "Hey, don't do this baptism!".
quote:The original request was for a regular baptism as part of a regular church service open to all, as is normal. That was rejected.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think there is one aspect to the OP scenario that hasn't been addressed is that this is a "by invitation only" event. Excuse me, but this is not a wedding ceremony. This is an event where an individual is being welcomed into the church--a body where it is the Spirit who does the inviting, not human beings.
quote:I'm not sure that the two can be separated because the former will to a large extent determine the latter. If for example, the priest was a heretic who wouldn't baptise anyone who believed in the divinity of Christ, and the bishop happened to lack to spine to overrule him (I've already said I consider these kinds of circumstances extremely unlikely) then where do you stand?
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I established the new thread in order to avoid discussions about 'why' the priest refused; I'm interested in whether lay members of the parish have the right to ignore that refusal (and I'm assuming that it would be supported by the bishop, not that the priest is just being difficult). It's my argument that they don't.
quote:Technically anyone? Looks like everyone is ignoring Reformed eccelisiology (again). In Reformed theology, Baptism in an act of the Church and cannot be done outside of the body of the Church. It must be recognized by the Session, employ the Trinitarian formula and be performed by a person authorized by the session to baptize, that is the Minister of Word & Sacrament (not Minister of Word & Holy Communion). No, laity may not in Reformed thought baptize. The example child's baptism could be and would be dismissed as outside the authority of the Session an in fact in blatant defiance of it, therefore the Nicene Creed's pronouncements do not come into effect.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Firstly, there aren't being baptised into one specific community, but rather the church universal. But yes, on the other hand, the community they appear in for baptism usually has some significance for the people involved and so the community gets the chance to welcome the child and give them their support.
Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest. So long as it's done with water and in the name of the Trinity. For instance, it may be necessary to baptise a child who is dying or has a shortened life expectancy that wouldn't allow enough time for a community to gather or for a priest to come and do it.
In cases where a cleric may refuse to perform a baptism (or a marriage or confirmation for that matter), I think it's the general rule among the members of the Anglican Communion to have right of appeal to the archdeacon and to (under his and the Bishops auspices) to 'employ' a priest to carry out the function in the church and before it's community.
quote:I think a comment up-thread raises an issue directly related to what you are saying, and on which we all probably disagree (as usual).
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I established the new thread ... I'm interested in whether lay members of the parish have the right to ignore that refusal (and I'm assuming that it would be supported by the bishop, not that the priest is just being difficult). It's my argument that they don't.
quote:OK - if you persist in refusing to play the game, consider the scenario that neither of the parents are themselves baptised, but turn up demanding baptism for their baby. This is a requirement of the BCP service...
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
The CofE position is/should be even clearer than the propositions above; it is not lawful for a minister of the Established Church to refuse or delay baptism of children properly brought for baptism, provided that the rules on notice and the number of godparents are complied with.
Canon B22 is tremendously clear, giving direct appeal to the Bishop if there is either refusal or delay.
In my own case, as a clerk in holy orders, I would never refuse/have never refused to baptise a child brought by his or her parents. The gift is of God freely given, my job is to serve.
quote:This case seems pretty obviously to be Anglican. Though some Anglicans do affirm a Reformed heritage, I suspect that for most Reformed ecclesiology is as beside the point as Baptist ecclesiology.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Technically anyone? Looks like everyone is ignoring Reformed eccelisiology (again).
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest.
quote:The good will of the parents?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?
Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?
quote:In my church, there is another aspect of this -- the baptism includes a vow by the congregation to do all within its power to raise the child in the faith. The more conscientious in our congregation feel that they are taking an oath in vain when they promise to do that with a child that they have never seen before and presumably will never see again. FWIW
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The good will of the parents?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?
Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?
quote:<tangent> I believe in England that a wedding has to be open to anyone. Otherwise, someone who who knows "just cause or impediment why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony" could be excluded.</tangent>
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think there is one aspect to the OP scenario that hasn't been addressed is that this is a "by invitation only" event. Excuse me, but this is not a wedding ceremony. This is an event where an individual is being welcomed into the church--a body where it is the Spirit who does the inviting, not human beings.
quote:My understanding from what has been written here, is that this child is in church at worship, every Sunday with their grandmother.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:In my church, there is another aspect of this -- the baptism includes a vow by the congregation to do all within its power to raise the child in the faith. The more conscientious in our congregation feel that they are taking an oath in vain when they promise to do that with a child that they have never seen before and presumably will never see again. FWIW
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The good will of the parents?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?
Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?
--Tom Clune
quote:I think there is a good analogy here to citizenship. As a citizen of a nation one has many rights and privileges, like freedom of movement with the nation, being able to work or own a business, etc. But one also has duties and obligations, like paying taxes, serving in the army in the time of war, etc. We do not give someone citizenship just because they desire the rights and privileges thereof. We must also have reasonable hope that they will comply with their duties and obligations.
Instruction on Infant Baptism. By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Approved by His Holiness Pope John Paul II October 20, 1980
Dialogue Between Pastors and Families With Little Faith or Non-Christian Families
30. It sometimes happens that pastors are approached by parents who have little faith and practice their religion only occasionally, or even by non-Christian parents who request Baptism for their children for reasons that deserve consideration. In this case the pastor will endeavor by means of a clear-sighted and understanding dialogue to arouse the parents' interest in the sacrament they are requesting and make them aware of the responsibility that they are assuming. In fact the Church can only accede to the desire of these parents if they give an assurance that, once the child is baptized, it will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. The Church must have a well-founded hope that the Baptism will bear fruit.
If the assurances given — for example, the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community of the faithful — are sufficient, the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families. If on the other hand they are insufficient, it will be prudent to delay Baptism. However the pastors should keep in contact with the parents so as to secure, if possible, the conditions required on their part for the celebration of the sacrament. If even this solution fails, it can be suggested, as a last recourse, that the child be enrolled in a catechumenate to be given when the child reaches school age.
31. These rules have already been made, and are already in force, but they require some clarifications. In the first place it must be clear that the refusal of Baptism is not a means of exercising pressure. Nor can one speak of refusal, still less of discrimination, but rather of educational delay, according to individual cases, aimed at helping the family to grow in faith or to become more aware of its responsibilities. With regard to the assurances, any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children deserves to be considered as sufficient. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
the priest, in vetoing the baptism, is expressing the mind of the Church. Before any lay person ventured to take the matter into his/her own hands, it would be necessary to refer it to the Bishop.
quote:I was assuming the good will of the parents - e.g. atheist parents requesting baptism for their child.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The good will of the parents?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?
Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?
quote:This is a useful point . A certificate may be bought from religious suppliers. Including an attractive ecumencial baptism certifcate.
Originally posted by Percy B:
A small contribution, if I may, is about the registration of a baptism. Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
If a lay person does a baptism in a garden or wherever there should be an effort made to register the baptism in the parish church registers. I know its an odd thing, but it could be very helpful for the person in the future.
quote:For what?
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
quote:Um...
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
]Well, yeah, if you were a memorialist, it wouldn't. But then an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
quote:You're just evading the issue by gainsaying a term and pretending that it means nothing. Did you notice that Lyda*Rose capitalized "Real Presence?" This refers to a belief in the objective efficacy of the Eucharistic elements when duly consecrated by a priest. It is a widespread doctrine with a fairly clear meaning, although deliberately vaguer than "Transubstantiation". Would you prefer that word?
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm pretty sure that when two or three are gathered together, real sacraments are really real.
I'm aware that apostolic succession and real presence often go together. But try not to conflate the two, okay?
quote:I do not share the opinion that all that is not forbidden by canon law is licit, but in the case at hand I can be at your service...
Originally posted by Alogon:
The canons express the mind of the church. Can anyone show me a canon giving a priest the authority to forbid a parishioner to baptize?
quote:
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
quote:My failure to capitalise is because I'm using my phone, and has nothing to do with a different definition of the term. I agree precisely with your definition above; I just think that "priest" applies to a wider subset of the population.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:You're just evading the issue by gainsaying a term and pretending that it means nothing. Did you notice that Lyda*Rose capitalized "Real Presence?" This refers to a belief in the objective efficacy of the Eucharistic elements when duly consecrated by a priest. It is a widespread doctrine with a fairly clear meaning, although deliberately vaguer than "Transubstantiation". Would you prefer that word?
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm pretty sure that when two or three are gathered together, real sacraments are really real.
I'm aware that apostolic succession and real presence often go together. But try not to conflate the two, okay?
quote:My point exactly. You quoted me out of context. I said:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
the priest, in vetoing the baptism, is expressing the mind of the Church. Before any lay person ventured to take the matter into his/her own hands, it would be necessary to refer it to the Bishop.
The canons express the mind of the church. Can anyone show me a canon giving a priest the authority to forbid a parishioner to baptize? He's not a little dictator, able to give any commands he pleases. As for the threat of excommunication, I'd hope that the priest would need to make a very convincing case that the motive for the parishioner's act was somehow malicious and intended to stir up trouble for the community.
quote:
In any case, it needs to be established that the priest.....
quote:In England for admission of a child to some schools - RC or c of e. sometimes, this not always.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:For what?
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
Genuine ignorance here. I have been asked (by a church when I moved to a new town) if I was ever baptized, no one has ever asked me to show a certificate.
quote:OK, sorry for misunderstanding you. It is a theoretically coherent idea that (1) the consecrated eucharistic elements have all the stature that tradition claims for them and that (2) any member of the church, presumably even a child, can invoke the blessing that makes them so. But I'm not aware of any well-developed school of thought that actually makes both of these claims. I once proposed to try it myself when I was about ten years old; but Dad objected that it would be sacrilegious, and I believed him. Silly me.
Originally posted by St Deird:
My failure to capitalise is because I'm using my phone, and has nothing to do with a different definition of the term. I agree precisely with your definition above; I just think that "priest" applies to a wider subset of the population.
quote:Did you miss this?
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:Um...
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
]Well, yeah, if you were a memorialist, it wouldn't. But then an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
Real presence believer, right here. Also part of the priesthood of all believers, and pretty sure that when two or three are gathered together, real sacraments are really real.
I'm aware that apostolic succession and real presence often go together. But try not to conflate the two, okay?
quote:I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
My phrase "apostolic successionist, Real Presence believer" was a bit of short hand for a very traditional, Catholic believer for whom the clear line of laying-on-of-hands is a very precise matter. Obviously there are folks such as yourself [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
quote:I did miss it, yeah. Apologies.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Did you miss this?
quote:I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
My phrase "apostolic successionist, Real Presence believer" was a bit of short hand for a very traditional, Catholic believer for whom the clear line of laying-on-of-hands is a very precise matter. Obviously there are folks such as yourself [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
quote:Thank you, IngoB for providing the reference in canon law; it helps me explain WHY it is a schismatic act, for which excommunication is the inevitable consequence.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I do not share the opinion that all that is not forbidden by canon law is licit, but in the case at hand I can be at your service...
Originally posted by Alogon:
The canons express the mind of the church. Can anyone show me a canon giving a priest the authority to forbid a parishioner to baptize?
quote:
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
quote:I'm not a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic, and a fairly traditional minded one at that. I do not at all believe that I have the right to do whatever I please in matters of faith and morals. Nevertheless, I say you are wrong here. Again, it is not the case that every disobedience is a schism. It may well reveal schismatic tendencies and it may well develop into a schism. But schism is an explicit and lasting defiance of church authority, with the clear intent to separate oneself from that authority. It is not just any old disobedience, not even if this disobedience was in response to an explicit command by said authority. This does not mean that a more "ordinary" disobedience is OK, it typically is a sin, and possibly a mortal sin. Thus it requires repentance and reconciliation with God (and thus with Church authority). But Roman Catholicism has a sacrament for that. One does not have to excommunicate people in order for the sacrament of confession to work. Indeed, then its regular working is somewhat impeded (because higher authority than normal must be involved).
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's expand a bit: as the canon law says, the proper minister of baptism is someone under the authority of the church, acting with that authority. Therefore to reject that authority, other than in a case of 'necessity', is a fundamentally schismatic act. It is to claim to have the authority of the church for your act as an individual. This is BY DEFINITION to set yourself up as a church. You are therefore acting as a schismatic. Unfortunately 500 years of Protestantism has meant that we don't take this statement seriously - our overblown individualism means that we think we have the right to do whatever we think is right.
quote:You know, I never had that impression of you until you said it.
I'm not a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic, and a fairly traditional minded one at that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Naw - he's a rabid liberal as I've just demonstrated...
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Ingo:
quote:You know, I never had that impression of you until you said it.
I'm not a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic, and a fairly traditional minded one at that.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Accepted.
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:I did miss it, yeah. Apologies.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Did you miss this?
quote:I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
My phrase "apostolic successionist, Real Presence believer" was a bit of short hand for a very traditional, Catholic believer for whom the clear line of laying-on-of-hands is a very precise matter. Obviously there are folks such as yourself [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
quote:But was there an 'official' priestly baptism in the Jewish faith, at that time, which John was potentially undermining or copying? Baptism is the initiation rite of most of the Christian church and seen in that light is sacramentally vital. But I'm almost sure John's baptism was the kind of thing itinerant wildcards like him and Jesus did - not the religious institution.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. How terrifying. People holding Eucharistic celebrations in their own houses. It'd be like the New Testament!
When I saw the title "A lay person baptising in defiance of their priest" I immediately thought of John the Baptist.
quote:1) I'm assuming that the policy of the church has been followed. It's therefore a question as to whether the person is willing to accept the logic of their position and leave their church - or persist in a state of unrepentant schism with respect to their congregation. Of course if the bishop supports the family, there's no issue. But if he doesn't, they've abrogated to themselves a role that should be exercised by their leader.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Ender's, can I ask you to focus for a moment on what I think are two important points here?
First, I don't think I've seen you acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be the priest, rather than the family, who has departed from Church practice by denying the baptism in the first place. What should the family do then? (And what should they do if the bishop refuses to discipline the priest?)
Secondly, if a "private" baptism takes place, and is a valid baptism, how should the priest work with the fact that s/he now has a newly-baptised infant in the parish?
quote:Additionally, some priests won't sponsor a candidate for confirmation without a proper cert for baptism; in which case confirmation will follow the candidate's baptism. Here in the Rep. of Ireland we seem to have loads of baptism certs floating around when it comes to inter-church marriages, as the RC Church request these.
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:In England for admission of a child to some schools - RC or c of e. sometimes, this not always.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:For what?
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
Genuine ignorance here. I have been asked (by a church when I moved to a new town) if I was ever baptized, no one has ever asked me to show a certificate.
quote:I fear that, from time to time, there are clergy with a rogue interpretation of basics, or whose behaviour verges on (actually, trespasses into) the surreal. The appeal to the bishop is then helpful to all. While some folk abuse it (there are even more nutty parishioners than there are nutty clerics and I have seen both at work), taking the next step up usually transpires when the pastoral relationship is already quite stressed and quite damanged.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm intrigued by the comments about appealing up the chain to the bishop. Realistically, wouldn't that annoy the local clergy person you have to deal with weekly or daily, making church relationships on a local level stressed for potentially a long time?
No matter what the bishop says, going over someone's head is not viewed as a friendly act, in any environment.
quote:As the classic reason for a parish priest refusing to baptize a kid is because the parents don't attend church, or won't go through the church baptism course, it's unlikely those parents care that much about their 'church relationship'.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm intrigued by the comments about appealing up the chain to the bishop. Realistically, wouldn't that annoy the local clergy person you have to deal with weekly or daily, making church relationships on a local level stressed for potentially a long time?
No matter what the bishop says, going over someone's head is not viewed as a friendly act, in any environment.
quote:Well in the CofE you'd have to be trying pretty hard not to follow the policy of the church (of England) anyway, since canon law can be interpreted to make baptism very open. I assume this is what you meant, and not the policy of the local church, which is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) I'm assuming that the policy of the church has been followed. It's therefore a question as to whether the person is willing to accept the logic of their position and leave their church - or persist in a state of unrepentant schism with respect to their congregation. Of course if the bishop supports the family, there's no issue. But if he doesn't, they've abrogated to themselves a role that should be exercised by their leader.
quote:And this is precisely my position. The child is a member of the Church. Full stop.
2) Assuming that the priest chooses to ignore the behaviour of the schismatic, then it should make zero difference in the treatment of the baby subsequently.
quote:And what tradition would that be then? I reckon you are projecting a fundamentalism on the canons here that neither is nor has been an actual tradition of dealing in canons (an actual corruption, perhaps). I swear that I did not look up what Aquinas had to say on the subject of schism prior to this post, but here's a bit of actual tradition then (slightly rearranged, to improve modern comprehension):
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's be clear - I'm offering a very traditionalist perspective - but in fact I'm working it out for myself in the sense that I've never taken the logic this far before.
quote:So as it happens, what I've said previously was almost verbatim what Aquinas said here, and that without having looked at this previously. That is real tradition, the free alignment of minds across centuries. And does my Church stand in this very tradition? Sure does, in fact, if you have read the above you will recognize that the Church is basically quoting the Angelic Doctor
Summa Theologiae IIa IIae q1
I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name "from being a scission of minds," and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.
Objection 2. Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) "is disobedience against the heavenly commandments." Therefore every sin is a schism.
Reply to Objection 2. The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say "rebelliously," since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is a schism.
quote:Now, I repeat that I am not a canon lawyer, but a glance at the canons suggests to me that the following canons could speak to the case at hand:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
quote:Now "just penalty" is precisely not code for "excommunication". Rather, if you click through the provided links, you will see that that punishment is explicitly listed where it is deemed to be a necessary consequence. Rather there is censure, interdict, etc., or frankly, a good talking to by the priest... A final canonical point, since you so like your canons. Here is the crucial
Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1366 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.
Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: ...
2/ a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning.
Can. 1379 In addition to the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1378, a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1381 §1. Whoever usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.
quote:Now, before you rejoice, understand what "strict" means here. It means less convictions, less penalties, less applications of the law. It does not mean that law is applied with particular strictness to the accused, it means law will come into force only if its norms are strictly fulfilled. That is what this canon means to canon law practice. If a law imposes penalties, then in case of doubt the perp walks scot free. That is proper canon law. Are you sure that on strict interpretation grandma sneaking in a baptism of her own is a proper schismatic? Well then, excommunicate her, it is right and just. Otherwise, deal with this differently. Please.
Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
