|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A lay person baptising in defiance of their priest
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
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.
This is a useful point . A certificate may be bought from religious suppliers. Including an attractive ecumencial baptism certifcate.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecumenical-Certificate-of-Baptism/dp/0281046115
Or rather creatively, those concerned could make
and paint their own copy could be sent to local church if desired or where-ever. Could also be notifed in the local newspaper, and a cutting saved with all the child's other momentos and treasures.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
For what?
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
You need a certificate of baptism (and a record of your confirmation) if you want to be ordained in the Church of England (and I'm sure in other churches too); our curate, who got ordained after she retired, had lost hers and had no idea where her parents had been attending church when she was baptised. Both had died, a surviving aunt couldn't remember a thing, and all she had to go on was that her parents had been living in Durham at the time. She finally tracked down the record of her baptism in the parish register of a church in Durham, but if she'd still had the certificate it would have saved a lot of worry and trouble.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Um...
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?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
[ 10. December 2012, 20:59: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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...
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
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?
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?
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.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
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.
My point exactly. You quoted me out of context. I said: quote:
In any case, it needs to be established that the priest.....
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
For what?
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.
In England for admission of a child to some schools - RC or c of e. sometimes, this not always.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
[ 10. December 2012, 23:25: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
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.
Um...
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?
Did you miss this?
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 [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
However, I think I am allowed to refer to a specific sort of person who sees both these concepts in traditional black and white terms without writing a paragraph about it. Since I referred to a person who held both these beliefs, it obviously wasn't about someone like you.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Did you miss this?
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 [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
I did miss it, yeah. Apologies.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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?
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...
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.
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.
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. But actually this is deeply unhealthy. There MAY be a justification for such an act - but the logic of it demands that you go the full hog and separate from your church if you seriously believe that action is the right thing to do. Sadly, because we don't take the 'Body of Christ' seriously, we allow the growth of a buffet approach to being a Christian, with no willingness to accept the theological logic of our actions.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Enders, I think you are right to an extent and it's interesting that the question of a 'valid' Eucharistic celebration has come up on this thread too. In places where Christianity has been under persecution the role of a priest and a 'valid' sacrament became quite important - not because they had such an elevated view of the 'powers' of a priest saying the right words, but simply because of the sense of being linked into the wider church, who was praying with them and for them. In their isolation, the importance of the body of Christ as opposed to their individual needs became very important.
I have a feeling I haven't expressed this terribly well....but not sure how else to phrase it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
From a RC point of view, Eastern Orthodox are schismatics. Anglicans are schismatics. Protestants are schismatics. The SSPX were maybe schismatics. A granny baptising her grandchild after a priest has said not to do so is not schismatic, but disobedient. There is no intention there to generally reject the authority of the Church and to break communion with her hierarchy. There is no kind of systematic organisation of resistance to ecclesiastical governance. This is a singular instance of an ill-advised ignoring of some rules laid down for a specific case. I do not believe that Catholics who steadfastly ignore the rulings of the hierarchy on contraception are properly called "schismatics". But one could make a much better case for that than about a granny who wants to get her grandchild into heaven by this illicit means no matter what "silly priests" may say.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Ingo:
quote:
I'm not a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic, and a fairly traditional minded one at that.
You know, I never had that impression of you until you said it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Ingo:
quote:
I'm not a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic, and a fairly traditional minded one at that.
You know, I never had that impression of you until you said it.
Naw - he's a rabid liberal as I've just demonstrated... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Did you miss this?
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 [Belle Ringer] who by experience have found other definitions.
I guess you don't like my short hand. Fair enough.
I did miss it, yeah. Apologies.
Accepted.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. How terrifying. People holding Eucharistic celebrations in their own houses. It'd be like the New Testament!
Yes.
When I saw the title "A lay person baptising in defiance of their priest" I immediately thought of John the Baptist.
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.
Personally, I'm ambiguous about this. I'm sure that anyone baptized by anyone else is truly baptized. But - as usual - our institutional rules usually demand more in the way of conditional authority for organizational validity. Eg, if unsure of the validity of a confirmand's or an ordinand's baptism, they are 'done' by the Bish, just in case. So if we're attached to a particular institution, it's rational to follow the authority that exists there.
I recall that there's something in the old prayer-books about a baby who might've been baptized in an emergency; this colloquially being referred to as a 'half-baptism'. And for the baptism to be 'completed' more formally in church at a later date.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
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.
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. I am strongly convinced that we need to take the corporate nature of the church more seriously - but as to HOW we do that, I really don't know. What I do feel I know is that this should be a big issue; that we aren't treating it as such reflects something very wrong about our understanding of the church.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Later in life sometimes we need a baptism certificate.
For what?
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.
In England for admission of a child to some schools - RC or c of e. sometimes, this not always.
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.
Also, if one is foolish enough to go forward for ordination, a full baptism cert is required. Or once again, no matter what Mum or Dad say, you get dunked again by the Bishop!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Alternatively an Archdeacon or Bishop may not know that this is going on and the church and its surrounding community may have suffered in silence at the hands of a priest doing something they shouldn't be otherwise doing. How are they expected to know if nobody talks about it or complains to the archdeacon or Bishop?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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'.
I've never come across anyone who's appealed a refusal for baptism. I've known of some parents angry enough to want to make a bit of trouble for the cleric that refused them by considering complaining to the bishop, along the lines of 'I'll tell your boss!' But I haven't personally met anyone who felt that was a worthwhile thing to do when the alternative is usually very easy. Maybe because the usual thing is to go to another church where the baptism policy is less restrictive.
I'm sure there are exceptions and some parents have a good case when appealing to the Bishop. And I can imagine a situation where perhaps a particular parish gets itself a 'bad' reputation in baptizing parishioners through an unfriendly or unusually difficult baptism policy needing to come to the ears of the bishop. But again I haven't seen this myself.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Even so, I'm with IngoB on this one - one act of disobedience does not a schism make. Therefore the child is baptised and is de facto a member of the Church.
quote:
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.
And this is precisely my position. The child is a member of the Church. Full stop.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by the concept of "authority" in a church. Maybe because I've wandered through denominations over the decades and have learned to be self-protective rather than accept what someone says just because he/she is clergy (shepherding movement, anyone?), but "authority" has two very different meanings.
One is "someone with a lot of knowledge about the topic, you would be wise to pay attention and consider what they say, but you make your own decisions." We have authorities in mathematics and astronomy and interpretation of modern poetry, we hire authorities in medicine to help us with our health, but we have the right (even self-preservation duty sometimes) to reject what they tell us to do.
The other meaning is "someone who must be obeyed whether they are right or wrong, because if you annoy them they have the right to harm you." If police arrest you, you have to go with them to the jail even though you did nothing wrong. If your boss is displeased with you he can fire you, so you'd better do what he says even if it's foolish or morally wrong, or else prepared to leave the job. You have no right to make decisions that reject their advice, except by escaping the realm in which they have authority.
I *think* I am hearing that the RCC views church authority in the police sense, your job is to obey whether or not they are right, they make the decisions, you have no right to make your own. I *think* protestants, by their very history, view authority as "educated wisdom, but you have a right to disagree and a duty to God to act on your own beliefs instead of claiming "I'm not responsible, he is, he told me to do it."
Am I stating accurately or am I still confused?
(I admit plenty of Protestant churches try the "you are obligated to obey us whether you agree or not" stance, and plenty of Catholics ignore any teachings they don't like. I'm aiming at what the upper levels of hierarchy think.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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):
quote:
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.
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
quote:
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.
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:
quote:
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.
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
quote:
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.
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.
Now, I applaud your desire to rediscover the Church as an actual (not just theoretical) ecclesiastical body. You interest in canon law is also commendable. But there are Churches and traditions who have had almost two thousand years experience with this. And one just does not do canon law in the spirit of Dirty Harry, or things go seriously wrong. We have had quite enough of that throughout history, thanks ever so kindly. Canon law must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Puritans.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
