Ship of Fools: Rewriting the Baptism service

Thread: Rewriting the Baptism service Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026665

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

According to news reports the Anglican Church is authorising as an alternative baptismal service a version which effectively writes out Original Sin and the Devil

Some of us would applaud this as being long overdue.

But shipmates may have other reactions.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

The Mail details the changes (scroll down to a side-by-side comparison).

In order for baptism to be valid the proper matter and form must be used and the one conferring the sacrament must really "intend to perform what the Church performs". Given this change, I'm not sure about the latter part anymore as far as the CofE is concerned. If a rejection of devil and sin is crucial to what baptism is about, and this would seems so to me, then the sacrament of baptism may now become invalid in the CofE. Hence I guess the RCC should start to conditionally baptize Anglicans joining her.

Sad.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What baptismal service did Jesus partake of?
Did He renounce sin and the Devil?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Shall we start by looking at the statement on the CofE website, which says that the Mail has been misleading in several ways.

What is happening follows from the Liverpool motion in 2011 which asked for alternative words for three parts of the service.

quote:
... which would not replace or revise the current Baptsim service but would be available for use as alternatives to three parts of the service.

That was agreed and a group of bishops wrote some alternatives and said alternatives are being piloted

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The OP recognised that this is an alternative on offer,

Other changes in the past have not offered a significant change in the theology of baptism,

If this alternative becomes generally used then themes like baptismal regeneration are out.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

The devil and all his works were dropped from the ASB and 1980 and then reinistated in 2000, although permission to continue to drop Beelezebub was retained in Comic Worship.

According to Blessed Thomas Aquinas it is entirely possible for a non-Christian to baptise a Christian as long as water was used and the Holy Trinity was invoked. Obviously, this is a bit de minimis.

Frankly, I would not hang a dog on the evidence produced by the Daily Heil. But the ASB version was basically OK, the Comic Worship needed improvement and the new improved version is not much better. Unless something credible and decent is sorted out PDQ the danger is that there will be a different baptistmal rite in every C of E parish.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The usual knee jerk reaction to anything in the DM !

That that paper reproduced was the wording of the new and old side by side

Forget the DM comment. The actual wording is there for all to see web page

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

A knee jerk is an entirely appropriate response to a lying rag full of bollocks.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'm failing to see how a shift from renouncing the devil to renouncing evil (which is what the revised text actually does) constitutes a rejection of Original Sin.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Mail details the changes (scroll down to a side-by-side comparison).

In order for baptism to be valid the proper matter and form must be used and the one conferring the sacrament must really "intend to perform what the Church performs". Given this change, I'm not sure about the latter part anymore as far as the CofE is concerned. If a rejection of devil and sin is crucial to what baptism is about, and this would seems so to me, then the sacrament of baptism may now become invalid in the CofE. Hence I guess the RCC should start to conditionally baptize Anglicans joining her.

Sad.

Yeah, but your guesses about Protestants are hardly ever that great.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

In my experience, the parents and godparents of the child enjoy renouncing the devil and the deceit and corruption of evil. The line that causes trouble is 'I submit to Christ as Lord,' which tends to make the people who only know submission as a sexual term (and that's most of them) go a little funny.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What baptismal service did Jesus partake of?
Did He renounce sin and the Devil?

40 days later, yes.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

The Cof E Baptism service in the Common Worship form is cumbersome. I think a simpler alternative shold be welcomed.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

A lot of ill considered reactions to this alternative baptismal service seem to be cropping up. Last night I read a link on facebook in which a priest complained that if the service dropped the notions of a devil and original sin, there wasn't really anything left of a baptismal theology. So wrong at so many levels. For one, original sin is an Augustinian concept of the Western Church, and shouldn't be conflated with the larger concept of a fallen creation. Then, too, the notion of a literal devil/satan as an instrumental consciousness isn't necessary for a proper Christian theology, strikes many people as childish literalism, and is arguably better conceived as objective moral evil to which humanity has a fatal predisposition. Finally, the overall complaint that this priest voiced about the baptismal liturgy was framed entirely in the negative, in terms of what the sacrament is meant to deliver us from, but not what it does for us in a positive sense, i.e. the grace it imparts and the grafting into the the Church, Christ's Mystical Body.

I find it rather a storm in a teacup, frankly.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In my experience, the parents and godparents of the child enjoy renouncing the devil and the deceit and corruption of evil. The line that causes trouble is 'I submit to Christ as Lord,' which tends to make the people who only know submission as a sexual term (and that's most of them) go a little funny.

Are people really that ignorant of language? It's one thing to drop archaic terms such as vouchsafe and deign, but "submit"? Really? Could one say, perhaps, "Do you confess Christ as Lord, and will you endeavour to follow Him?" Oh, "endeavour" -- what the hell does that mean? Really, we can't go on dumbing down the language ad infinitum.

[ 05. January 2014, 14:17: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

I find it rather a storm in a teacup, frankly.

Agreed, the Daily Mail, per usual is inventing a controversy which most people in the CofE, I suspect, would not give a damn.

In baptismal prep, clergy tell people all the time that the "Devil" in the promises does not refer to the cartoonish, two-horned creature presented in popular media, but rather to the insidious power of evil which IMHO does exist, in social structures and in people's deliberate choices to turn away from love, life, justice, and mercy. So, people are already re-interpreting the concept of "Satan". Replacing the word together with evil doesn't seem all that radical in light of what's happening in baptismal prep.

[ 05. January 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That the Daily Mail should quote Common Worship as 'The Old Service' is ignorant in the extreme. It is tje version in Common Worship and is only about ten years old. It was crafted by the then bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe. Many on the liturgical Commission (according to one of them who is a friend of mine) warned him that it was too verbose but he would brook no objection.

My main problem is with the word 'submit' - I hadn't thought of a sexual undertone (am i that naive?) but did think of a wrestling match. People I have helped prepare for baptism have tended to think the same, unprompted by me, and have opted for the Series 2 form which is still 'legal' (So IngoB needs to call for conditional baptism for any who have been baptised since 1967. when Series 2 came in.

As for the Devil, you can't have lived through the last century without knowing of great evils, whether you regard 'devil' as metaphor or a literal entity/person.

Some godparents have a problem with the notion of God let alone the devil - so i'd be inclined to keep both of them in so as to give a bit of challenge.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
According to news reports the Anglican Church is authorising as an alternative baptismal service a version which effectively writes out Original Sin and the Devil

Some of us would applaud this as being long overdue.

But shipmates may have other reactions.

It was tried in the 1980s, I think, in the big green ASB.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
According to Blessed Thomas Aquinas it is entirely possible for a non-Christian to baptise a Christian as long as water was used and the Holy Trinity was invoked. Obviously, this is a bit de minimis.

True, but only under the condition that this person intends to do what the Church does. See Aquinas' Repy to objection 2. And one can question whether Anglicans still do that if they remove all reference to renouncing the devil and sin. Interestingly, someone essentially naive about Christianity in my opinion would have less of a problem there. Intending to do "whatever Christians may intend to do" through copying the outer form of their rite would suffice for a helpful pagan, but the actions of a Christian do get into the nitty gritty of what it all is supposed to mean, I would say. It is after all their sacrament.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, but your guesses about Protestants are hardly ever that great.

Well, that's just an ad hominem contributing little to the thread. But it provides opportunity to think about the role of the Church in this. Just what can and does the Church demand of those seeking baptism? If baptism is the gate to Christianity, is it simply wide open for people to walk through, or is there a gate keeper?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And one can question whether Anglicans still do that if they remove all reference to renouncing the devil and sin.

The proposed text refers to renouncing evil in all its forms. I am struggling to see why this is a problem.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Well, that's just an ad hominem contributing little to the thread.

It wasn't an attack, unless you have a deeper knowledge of the Anglican baptism service that you let on.

quote:
But it provides opportunity to think about the role of the Church in this. Just what can and does the Church demand of those seeking baptism? If baptism is the gate to Christianity, is it simply wide open for people to walk through, or is there a gate keeper?

The full service continues to demand a renunciation of evil and a resolution to follow Jesus Christ, along with profession of belief in the Creed and a vow participate in the Church. The text of the service is easy enough to find online if you really care.

This proposed change is more of an intellectually insulting attempt to make the service easier to understand than a departure from the Apostolic faith.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Would Anglicans care more if we omit the Devil from the Liturgy, or if we omit the Queen from the Liturgy?

I have a suspicion that Anglicans would cry and scream more for the latter.

[ 05. January 2014, 22:47: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In order for baptism to be valid the proper matter and form must be used and the one conferring the sacrament must really "intend to perform what the Church performs". Given this change, I'm not sure about the latter part anymore as far as the CofE is concerned. If a rejection of devil and sin is crucial to what baptism is about, and this would seems so to me, then the sacrament of baptism may now become invalid in the CofE. Hence I guess the RCC should start to conditionally baptize Anglicans joining her.

Don't be ridiculous.

I was baptised in a Baptist congregation, by a Baptist minister. I was asked
a) whether I believed that Jesus was the Son of God
b) if I promised to follow Christ for the rest of my life
I was then baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Nowhere in there was I asked about my beliefs on sin, my thoughts on the devil, or whether I wished to renounce either of them. And yet, my baptism is recognised as valid by the Catholic Church. Why would the CofE baptisms be any different?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The proposed text refers to renouncing evil in all its forms. I am struggling to see why this is a problem.

Sin is not identical with evil. Sin is moral evil. An accident, for example, is a physical evil. There is also metaphysical evil, as in the relationship of predator and prey. Renouncing evil is hence actually impossible and trying to do so is insane, or at least stupidly tramples all over an entire body of theological and philosophical concerns. The famous "problem of evil" of theodicy, for example, is largely not a problem of sin. It is relatively easy to find reasons why God might allow people to sin. Rather it is (meta)physical evil that is the problem: why earthquakes, etc.

Apart from these perhaps somewhat abstract (though crucial) concerns, renouncing all evil is in my opinion an exercise in responsibility shifting from a psychological standpoint. We are all too happy to renounce the evils of child labour in sweatshops or whatever. But when we renounce sin, we (correctly) interpret that as largely addressing us personally in our actions. It is our (moral) evils we are talking about, not the general evil of the world.

As for the devil, renouncing him firstly implies a belief in his actual existence as an entity. And that is a significant piece of faith, and precisely hence is he not being mentioned here any longer. The disappearance of the devil is a reflection of the lack of such belief in an evil spirit, chief of demons, prince of the world. And with that comes a lack of belief in actual personal malevolence aimed at humanity. The modern view is that it's a tough world and we humans add to that by tripping each other up unnecessarily, but that's it. Not so in a world full with demons and in particular the devil, that kind of world is actively trying to bring you down (and without the incessant counter-warfare of the angels it would do so quickly). There is an entire attitude change concerning what it means to live in the world hidden in this issue.

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Nowhere in there was I asked about my beliefs on sin, my thoughts on the devil, or whether I wished to renounce either of them. And yet, my baptism is recognised as valid by the Catholic Church. Why would the CofE baptisms be any different?

I agree that the policy should be consistent between Baptists, Anglicans, and whomever else. I also agree that it is the RC bishops, not I, who can make this policy decision and will be held responsible for it by God. However, I know that Mormon baptism is considered invalid by the RCC, in spite of using the correct matter and form, on account of differences in belief.

So for me it is a significant question whether teachings about the devil and sin are necessary for a baptism to be valid. This may have been answered by the acceptance of Baptist baptism. Or not. History may play a role here. Changing a rite to avoid mention of the devil and sin may signal something different than following a tradition that does not mention them. I know little about Baptists, but I've had the impression that they are typically fairly "conservative" and would have expected that devil and sin still feature in their typical teachings.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Would Anglicans care more if we omit the Devil from the Liturgy, or if we omit the Queen from the Liturgy?

I have a suspicion that Anglicans would cry and scream more for the latter.

If by cry and scream you mean "not give a hoot", sure.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The UCCan uses "Do you promise to seek justice and resist evil?" and has for the past forty years.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sin is not identical with evil. Sin is moral evil. An accident, for example, is a physical evil. There is also metaphysical evil, as in the relationship of predator and prey. Renouncing evil is hence actually impossible and trying to do so is insane, or at least stupidly tramples all over an entire body of theological and philosophical concerns.

Don't be silly. It's obvious the rite is referring to moral evil. Or do you seriously believe people will think they're renouncing earthquakes, plagues etc?

The current rite refers to fighting sin, the world and the devil. Is that idiotic as well because it's not made explicit that "world" means worldly temptations?

Anyway, I don't think you actually believe any of your post. It reads like the sort of convoluted eisegesis that SSPX practise to prove that the Novus Ordo is a surrender to Protestantism.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

We do a lot of baptisms as we are a big parish and however good our baptism preparation it is only the parents that have had an explanation of the language and symbolism. The other 100-250 people present have not and they have often mentally switched off the minute they enter the building as they endure what has to be endured before the party. The sniggering, chatting, commenting and joking by the congregation is something that I didn't expect when I started doing baptisms.

These days I do a housekeeping notice at the beginning about respecting the wishes of the family and explain that there are bits they need to join in and get them to practice. This has lessened the obvious sneering and does engage them but they are coming into something completely alien so if some changes in the language is helpful then let's give it a go, or not in my case as we aren't one of the trial parishes.

[ 06. January 2014, 07:00: Message edited by: Poppy ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Don't be silly. It's obvious the rite is referring to moral evil. Or do you seriously believe people will think they're renouncing earthquakes, plagues etc?

The current rite refers to fighting sin, the world and the devil. Is that idiotic as well because it's not made explicit that "world" means worldly temptations?

First, concerning validity (rather than efficacy) we are here actually discussing more what the person doing the baptising believes. Second, if all this is so perfectly obvious, then why is it being changed? Third, you are focusing exclusively on my first point, concerning the definition of evil. I assume then that my other two points, concerning the psychological impact of the word "sin" and the actual existence of the devil, hit home closer for you.

And as an aside, if as you report Anglicans are asked now to fight sin, world and devil, then that is also confused and problematic. The classical enemies of the soul are world, flesh and devil. And these are all sources of temptation to sin. So to list only two of them, leaving out the flesh - a rather prominent source of temptation particularly also in our days - and instead mix in the potential result of temptation - sin - is once more insufficient and (intentionally?) misleading.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I assume then that my other two points, concerning the psychological impact of the word "sin" and the actual existence of the devil, hit home closer for you.

No, I didn't have time.

Regarding the psychology of the word sin, I think your comments reflect your own mind rather than universal experience. It's not obvious to me why evil implies other people's evil but sin doesn't imply other people's sin.

I think the problem with sin is that the unchurched often have a confused understanding of it, and think that as it's a churchy word it means exclusively churchy sins, such as blasphemy or gay sex.

Regarding the devil, you are probably right that many Anglican ministers don't believe in a personal devil, but that seems to me a separate theological question and one that isn't affected by this proposed liturgical change.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[qb]According to Blessed Thomas Aquinas it is entirely possible for a non-Christian to baptise a Christian as long as water was used and the Holy Trinity was invoked. Obviously, this is a bit de minimis.
True, but only under the condition that this person intends to do what the Church does. See Aquinas' Repy to objection 2. And one can question whether Anglicans still do that if they remove all reference to renouncing the devil and sin. Interestingly, someone essentially naive about Christianity in my opinion would have less of a problem there. Intending to do "whatever Christians may intend to do" through copying the outer form of their rite would suffice for a helpful pagan, but the actions of a Christian do get into the nitty gritty of what it all is supposed to mean, I would say. It is after all their sacrament.

Aquinas talks about commonality of intention or action. So if the commonality of action is there, it is possible for a Jew, Turk, infidel, heretic or, indeed, Anglican to Baptise someone provided they use water and invoke the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If commonality of intention were purely the issue at stake then it would be difficult, for example, to say that a Baptism performed by a minister in a denomination that did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but such Baptisms are valid Baptisms but the Catholic Church has always accepted them as such.

It would also raise the issue of the validity of a Baptism conducted by a Catholic Priest who has lost his faith, say, or turned universalist. Now Aquinas would say that unity of action was sufficient and that the frailty of God's servants did not diminish the power of His grace. But if you are going to insist that unity of intention is a necessary criteria in every sacrament then the only way you can establish securely that it is a valid sacrament is to inject the officiant with a truth drug before catechising him. Which, I submit, is a) silly and b) Donatism.

I would also point out that the decision to recognise such Baptisms has already been taken by the Catholic Church inasmuch as the "renounce evil" formula has been in continuous use in the Church of England since at least 1980 and has also been used in other denominations such as the Methodist Church for a similar length of time. As the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, during this period, was not known for it's fluffy liberalism and it's enthusiasm to be down with the zeitgeist, it's clearly regarded as being within the pale of respectability. The decision to unrecognise them would be an shift in direction which, among other things, would probably hole the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham below the waterline.

[ 06. January 2014, 10:58: Message edited by: Gildas ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Aquinas talks about commonality of intention or action.

Nope. "He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments."

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
So if the commonality of action is there, it is possible for a Jew, Turk, infidel, heretic or, indeed, Anglican to Baptise someone provided they use water and invoke the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As already mentioned above, I see potentially more problems with an Anglican / heretic baptising than with a (benevolent) Jew / Turk / infidel baptising, as far as intentionality is concerned. A non-Christian can intend to do what the Church does "naively", i.e., it is precisely their lack of knowledge that gives space for God to supply all that is missing. An empty glass is easily filled with living water. Whereas heresies can potentially interfere with the intention of baptism. A glass full with sludge is not easily filled with living water.

Whether the case at hand points to heresy at all, and then to a heresy sufficiently crass to invalidate the baptism, certainly can be questioned. And as I've said, I ultimately accept the judgement of my superiors in the faith on that. But it is fact that for RCs baptism can be invalidated by false belief in spite of correct matter and form, as demonstrated by the rejection of Mormon baptism.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If commonality of intention were purely the issue at stake then it would be difficult, for example, to say that a Baptism performed by a minister in a denomination that did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but such Baptisms are valid Baptisms but the Catholic Church has always accepted them as such.

Sorry, I'm out of my depth there. Can you give me a concrete example for a denomination that officially does not believe in baptismal regeneration but whose baptism is recognised by the RCC? I simply do not know.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It would also raise the issue of the validity of a Baptism conducted by a Catholic Priest who has lost his faith, say, or turned universalist.

That depends. It is not the worthiness of the minister (thus Donatism), but rather the intentionality that counts. If the faithless Catholic priest still intends to do what the Church does, even though he has lost belief in it himself, then there is no problem concerning the validity. That's basically the same situation as with a baptism by a non-Christian. (Just more precarious, since it relies not on ignorance but probably on habit and a sense of duty...) Conversely, a baptism performed in a theatre play or for a movie is no baptism even if it has the proper form and matter. There is no actual intention to perform a baptism there, just an intention to imitate one.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I would also point out that the decision to recognise such Baptisms has already been taken by the Catholic Church inasmuch as the "renounce evil" formula has been in continuous use in the Church of England since at least 1980 and has also been used in other denominations such as the Methodist Church for a similar length of time.

This brings me back to the point that I would find it interesting to discuss just what freedom to "bind and loosen" the Church has in this matter. I really am unsure about that. Anyway, if the OP is news at all, then I assume something significant has changed (or is potentially about to change) now in Anglican liturgy. And as mentioned before in discussing the Baptists, I do not think that these cases can be evaluated without reference to such prior history.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What baptismal service did Jesus partake of?
Did He renounce sin and the Devil?

The baptism of repentance, ref John the Baptist. He shows us the way.

This change is long overdue imv. I know someone who faltered rather than have his daughter christened as the wording was so meaningless to him. I think that repentance is far more important in confirmation or for those who are mature enough to embrace baptism for themselves. Even then, evil is a sufficient synonym for the devil afaiac.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, if the OP is news at all...

I think you assume too much of the Daily Mail ...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Methinks that the whole thing is a sign that Michael Nazir-Ali is at a loose end.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[qb]Aquinas talks about commonality of intention or action.
Nope. "He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments."

Good spot, my bad. However intentionality of action can be sufficient in some circumstances, no?

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
So if the commonality of action is there, it is possible for a Jew, Turk, infidel, heretic or, indeed, Anglican to Baptise someone provided they use water and invoke the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

quote:
As already mentioned above, I see potentially more problems with an Anglican / heretic baptising than with a (benevolent) Jew / Turk / infidel baptising, as far as intentionality is concerned. A non-Christian can intend to do what the Church does "naively", i.e., it is precisely their lack of knowledge that gives space for God to supply all that is missing. An empty glass is easily filled with living water. Whereas heresies can potentially interfere with the intention of baptism. A glass full with sludge is not easily filled with living water.

Whether the case at hand points to heresy at all, and then to a heresy sufficiently crass to invalidate the baptism, certainly can be questioned. And as I've said, I ultimately accept the judgement of my superiors in the faith on that. But it is fact that for RCs baptism can be invalidated by false belief in spite of correct matter and form, as demonstrated by the rejection of Mormon baptism.

There is an implicit assumption that the error of a pagan is an innocent one whereas the error of a heretic is not. I don't think that I can make windows into peoples souls. But I don't think that, morally or spiritually, there is a huge amount of difference between a Jewish midwife baptising a dying baby despite not believing in the Holy Trinity and a Baptist midwife baptising a dying baby despite not believing that infant baptism made a blind bit of difference to the child's eternal destiny. I think that we thank people for being gracious and move on. And the thing is that if this de minimis baptism is acceptable, I think it has to be fairly hard for a heretic or modernist to corrupt the process. Mainly, I think, because the Church's theology of Baptism ought to be about the widest spread of God's mercy and not about drawing lines, with protestants and modernists on the wrong side of them.

Mormonism, btw, is Trinitarian in form and polytheist in content. Which is why Mormons have to be rebaptised and Protestants don't.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If commonality of intention were purely the issue at stake then it would be difficult, for example, to say that a Baptism performed by a minister in a denomination that did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but such Baptisms are valid Baptisms but the Catholic Church has always accepted them as such.

quote:
Sorry, I'm out of my depth there. Can you give me a concrete example for a denomination that officially does not believe in baptismal regeneration but whose baptism is recognised by the RCC? I simply do not know.

Any denomination that practices adult Baptism and Baptises in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Arguably the Church of England because in the 19th Century an Anglican Clergyman was taken to a tribunal for denying Baptismal Regeneration and the view was taken that it was not necessary to believe in same. I do believe in Baptismal Regeneration, as it happens, but I have no way of knowing, for example, if the clergyman who Baptised me did. I'm not sure if the major protestant denominations in the UK believe in Baptismal Regeneration offically, but I'm pretty sure, based on conversations, that their ministers are not universally signed up to the issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It would also raise the issue of the validity of a Baptism conducted by a Catholic Priest who has lost his faith, say, or turned universalist.

quote:
That depends. It is not the worthiness of the minister (thus Donatism), but rather the intentionality that counts. If the faithless Catholic priest still intends to do what the Church does, even though he has lost belief in it himself, then there is no problem concerning the validity. That's basically the same situation as with a baptism by a non-Christian. (Just more precarious, since it relies not on ignorance but probably on habit and a sense of duty...) Conversely, a baptism performed in a theatre play or for a movie is no baptism even if it has the proper form and matter. There is no actual intention to perform a baptism there, just an intention to imitate one.

I'm not sure I think it precarious. Thinking about it the intention is present on the part of the candidate or the candidates parents. Clearly this is different on the telly where everybody present knows - whatever their theology of Baptism - the whole thing is a fiction from start to end.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Daily Mail story is, as usual, totally off beam. As others have pointed out, it's not Justin's call; it's only experimental; it hasn't got Synodical approval; it's trying to meet pastoral demand. But I have huge misgivings about the text on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle. See my blog here.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
However intentionality of action can be sufficient in some circumstances, no?

I do not understand what you are asking there. It is certainly true that the effect of the baptism can be obtained without the sacrament proper, and even systematically so (so-called "baptisms" of desire and blood, respectively). But I don't see how this matters for our discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
There is an implicit assumption that the error of a pagan is an innocent one whereas the error of a heretic is not.

No, there isn't! There simply is an assumption that a pagan will typically not have the necessary insight in and association with Christianity to have his errors directly interfere with the sacrament. If a Jain asked me to do some rite or the other for them, and I somehow was convinced to do this, then I would act essentially "mechanically" and with no other purpose than to help them out. Because I basically have no idea about Jainism. I would by default intend to do what Jains do simply because the only real point of reference I have happens to be what the Jains have supplied to me. My own Christian beliefs should perhaps have stopped me from participating in a Jain rite, but they would impose on the Jain rite only if I had been deceitful to them (e.g., if I intended to sneak in a Christian rite). Quite possibly I would have my own Christian motivations in "doing the Jain thing", e.g., perhaps I'm convinced that for this dying Jain the most Christian thing to do is to provide a Jain death rite rather than to attempt achieving a last minute conversion. But from a Jain perspective I can imagine that this is still "good enough". Certainly it is my perspective that a Jain baptising honestly in order to help out Christians is "good enough" on intentionality, even if they do so based on Jain motivations.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
But I don't think that, morally or spiritually, there is a huge amount of difference between a Jewish midwife baptising a dying baby despite not believing in the Holy Trinity and a Baptist midwife baptising a dying baby despite not believing that infant baptism made a blind bit of difference to the child's eternal destiny.

Setting aside the question of the eternal fate of unbaptised children as such, the problem here is the apparent contradiction in your description. If the Baptist does not believe that infant baptism makes any difference, then why are they doing it? If it is mere play-acting to satisfy someone or something, then I would worry about the validity of that baptism indeed. If instead it is directed towards some RC parents, sincerely intending to give to them what they wish for their child (and hence through them sincerely intending a real baptism), then I would assume that there is no problem. The same is true for the Jew. The difference is that it may be harder for the Baptist to sincerely intend what the RC parents wish, precisely because of their own belief interfering with the RC one.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Mainly, I think, because the Church's theology of Baptism ought to be about the widest spread of God's mercy and not about drawing lines, with protestants and modernists on the wrong side of them.

I do not see a general issue with Protestants, whereas with modernists of all denominations it could become ticklish... Or in other words, I do not believe that the catechumenate is an unnecessary hurdle. Baptism is not just some grace freebie that is available to anyone who asks for it. It is the grace associated with becoming a follower of Christ, and that has meaning beyond adopting the label "Christian".

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Any denomination that practices adult Baptism and Baptises in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Well, I was baptised as an adult by the RCC, so that does not really tell me much... I do not think that denying infant baptism necessarily implies a false opinion on what baptism does. It might simply be a mistake about who can obtain it.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not sure if the major protestant denominations in the UK believe in Baptismal Regeneration offically, but I'm pretty sure, based on conversations, that their ministers are not universally signed up to the issue.

Then I for one do worry about the validity of their baptisms. (Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Baptismal Regeneration".)

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not sure I think it precarious. Thinking about it the intention is present on the part of the candidate or the candidates parents.

But this simply means that the candidate would be covered through "baptism by desire" no matter what, it does not tell us whether the sacrament itself is valid.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0