|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Anabaptism
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Mrs Trisagion has recently taken up a post as the Administrator of the local Anglican benefice. This morning she was introduced to the people who attend the three churches making up the benfice at their monthly joint service. During this service a young baby, the child of a (practising, daily Mass-going) Catholic father and an Anglican mother, was baptised. So far so good. The only problem is that the baby was baptised here (in the local Catholic Parish church) yesterday: same baby, same parents, same Godparents.
What to do?
What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents? What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?
What do we say to the Vicar about this business? What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?
You can imagine how sensitive this all is and I would genuinely welcome views, particularly from Anglicans and Catholics (but any perspectives will be gratefully received), on how to handle this difficult situation.
[ 08. May 2007, 10:30: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once. It's more likely that the couple didn't let anyone know that they were having two ceremonies, and were just covering all the bases (!) And quite honestly, if you were either of the two priests, you wouldn't think to ask...
One of those occasions where we realise how much our ecclesial practice is out of kilter with people's supermarket choice mentality.
I'd make sure the Anglican priest knows, so that he/she can add a note to the register to the effect that the child had already been baptised. And then get the two clergy to talk to each other about how they pick up the obvious need for pastoral instruction in this particular case...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Oh, dear.
I think my main caution would be to avoid the dangerous syllogism: "Something must be done, this is something, this must be done". I face an analogous scenario in a few months time as I am C of E and Mrs Callan is Methodist. We've provisionally decided on a joint service with an Anglican officiant and a Methodist preacher (which is the reverse of what we did when we got married.) The question is horribly sensitive and the potential for the two of us winding each other up over it is quite marked despite both of us wanting not to hurt the other. I can understand why the couple might have gone down this route and I also understand quite how you feel about it!
The question that strikes me is why the couple concerned didn't explore this particular route. That means addressing their relationship with their respective churches and their relationship with each other. Why did they not feel they could explore their options with your church and/ or the united benefice? Did they have any options, beyond one partner agreeing for the baptism to take place at the others church? The Anglican rules prohibit rebaptism so, if the Anglican vicar knew about it he was being very naughty, although if they didn't tell your lot its quite likely they didn't tell him, either. If they don't feel they can talk to their respective clergy about the sensitivities and issues arising from this, that strikes me as being desperately sad and both the couple and the churches need to address the matter.
Good luck!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
Sounds to me like the Anglicans may have been in the same darkness as the Catholics on this one: you've all had the wool royally pulled over your eyes by the baptismal family.
As an Anglican marrying a Catholic, I imagine the mother of the child would have promised initially to raise the children Catholic. So she's broken faith there. And on the other hand, the father clearly dissembled to you guys. Probably they decided they couldn't definitively decide which denomination in which to raise their children. What a mess.
From the Anglican point of view, you can be reassured that we too believe firmly (well, officially) that once baptised, always baptised, and that baptism is never to be administered again, so long as it was performed in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ONLY situation in which a form of (re-)baptism might occur, is if there was any doubt as to the validity of the rite (eg, done in the Name of Jesus only, or in the Name of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, or some other variation), or indeed, doubt that it was done before.
An example in the parish in which I work: an autistic child and her siblings and cousins were brought for baptism. There was doubt as to whether the autistic child had been baptised - when she was born, a chaplain had had to be called because the life of the child hung in the balance. The parents weren't sure of the denomination of the chaplain, weren't sure what the chaplain had done (whether a blessing or a baptism), there wasn't a baptism certificate, and no register entry to be found (I rang the hospital, I traced every lead I could). Given that the child was being brought with other family members, the parents felt that her being left out would be more problematic than inclusion. And so the priest agreed to provisionally baptise her, with the words, "N. if you have not already been baptised, I baptise you..." etc. And this time a certificate was given and an entry made in the church register! By my own hand.
The thing that bothers me about your case, Trisagion, is the fact that the couple clearly did not understand that baptism is (almost) universal, that Romans these days accept as valid baptisms done with the Trinitarian formula, and ditto for Anglicans. They also seem to be confused as to what baptism is actually all about - did they actually absorb the baptismal preparation (if any) provided by either the RCs or the Anglicans? Either that, or the parents think they can be the harbingers of RCC/Anglican union through offering their child at the fonts of both places... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As to how to handle it, I'd be having a chat with the Anglican priest, and asking for his/her take on the story. (Or getting Mrs T to do so, as it was in that capacity that she discovered the discrepancy.) He/She may not be aware that you guys baptised the child, in the same way you didn't know the child was being baptised at the Anglican pile. I am sure he/she will be equally horrified at this irregularity. Well, I would be. I'd be terribly embarrassed, actually. And nettled. And I'd want to know.
For the parents: I just don't know. Is it worth kicking up a stink about? Presumably as a good Catholic the father is not into contraception (but we won't go there), and so other children can be expected. Perhaps the quietest way to go would be to wait for the next child, and then tackle the parents on the issue of making a choice: Us OR Them, not both. And clarifying their understanding of what baptism is all about.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once. It's more likely that the couple didn't let anyone know that they were having two ceremonies, and were just covering all the bases (!)
Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.
quote:
One of those occasions where we realise how much our ecclesial practice is out of kilter with people's supermarket choice mentality.
Ain't that the truth!
quote:
I'd make sure the Anglican priest knows, so that he/she can add a note to the register to the effect that the child had already been baptised. And then get the two clergy to talk to each other about how they pick up the obvious need for pastoral instruction in this particular case...
Thank you. I think, having in mind the Vicar's knowledge of the whole picture, that might prove problematic.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Someone from an anabaptist perspective has to snigger at some point in this thread, so it may as well be me ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) . As I mention whenever this sort of thing comes up, my wife was rebaptised as an infant in an anglican church for no sounder reason than getting the photos and the cake.
I agree that there's a gap between church practice and consumerism, but, given that "one church per state" is an anachronism, and that consumerism looks like it's here to stay, I'm not convinced that trying to move the world to fit in with the church is viable, let alone desirable. In the meantime, I stand by my conviction that the best way to leave the widest range of options open to children is not two baptisms but no baptism.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
I am totally outraged by the response of the Vicar in this case! It's not a game he's playing - what did he hope to achieve? This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!
I have a Catholic friend with an Anglican husband, and they chose to baptise their children in the Anglican church, but bring them up as Catholics (again, slightly odd, but a baptism is a baptism, after all...)
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.
That's just wrong.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Love the You you hide:
This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!
You're right: if we carried on down this route we'd have to let all those anabaptist denominations into the ecumenical club, and that would never do!
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think there is a world of difference between an Anabaptist honestly baptising someone who they sincerely believe has not been baptised with someone who knows damn well that a child has been validly baptised, according to the teaching of their own church, and rebaptising anyway.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
The proper Anglican response is as we all know 'don't ask, don't tell.' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If he did know then he certainly should not have rebaptised, let alone advertising it as ecumenism - driving a horse and coach through his own church's rules and another's is the very opposite of ecumenism. I can't understand his attitude at all. TBH if I was in the Catholic church in question I'd want to know from the Anglican Bishop if this was now Diocesan policy.
Having said which, although I do explain that baptism is once for all and is into the Christian church not just our bit of it, I have never thought to ask at baptism prep 'you haven't had the baby baptised anywhere else have you?' but I will now!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
LOL @ Melon! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
TBH if I was in the Catholic church in question I'd want to know from the Anglican Bishop if this was now Diocesan policy.
Me too (although I hate dropping people in it).
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Love the You you hide:
This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!
You're right: if we carried on down this route we'd have to let all those anabaptist denominations into the ecumenical club, and that would never do!
I didn't know they were excluded - don't Baptists come under the definition of anabaptist?
I agree with Callan that rebaptising an adult at his/her own volition who has been baptised as an infant is somewhat different to getting your baby 'done' twice on consecutive Sundays!
One of the many things I've been accused of is 'being an anabaptist' as we let our children make up their own minds about baptism and I would dearly have loved a full immersion baptism but as I know rebaptism is against the rules for my own church I would not have felt right getting it done.
I did feel when I was a new Christian that I had to an extent deprived of that by my parent's 'folk religion' impelling them to have us all baptised in the C of E as infants then bringing us up in a household where the major religious influence was spiritualism.
However at this stage I do wonder if the fact I felt I already belonged to the church by baptism was what finally got me over the threshold in my thirties.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
We should not exclude the possibility that the vicar is quite clueless in his own right. There are occasional clerics whose comments or behaviour suggest that their theological training may have just passed through their ears with no stopping in between them. If an ordinand had not been raised in a religious setting, and their instructors might have assumed that Everybody Knows about non-repeatable baptism, having been diligent in their Donatism class, and not spoken further of it. Coupled with a brief and not useful curacy...
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.
That's just wrong.
What Callan said.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Well, clearly if the vicar did know what was going on, it needs to be taken up. If not with him, I'd get the RC priest to talk to the Area Dean so that the information on this guy's cluelessness can be fed back to the Bishop.
<Mutter, mutter..irascible old fogey mode> What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
I didn't know they were excluded - don't Baptists come under the definition of anabaptist?
I wasn't planning on derailing this thread, and we've done anabaptism a few times recently. But reading ecumenical documents as an anabaptist makes me feel a bit like the only grammar school kid in an etonian reunion. The door may be more or less open, various levels of co-operation may be more or less open, but anabaptism remains the dark secret that means we'll never be fully welcome. Some of Lindbeck's stuff comes across as "If we catholics, lutherans and calvinists could only get really united against those anabaptists..."
Heading back towards the OP, I reading Pete173's
quote:
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once
as recognising that the "one" in "one baptism" in Ephesians 4 doesn't refer to how many times an individual is baptised. The current system by which most of the historical denominations recognise each other's presence in the "one baptism" franchise is a quite recent one. 500 years ago, church membership was more about defining your territory and being able to excommunicate when necessary, and who wasn't baptised by your group was at least as important as who was. The "approved baptism dealership" system we have today is progress, I suppose, but it still seems to me that it's more about exclusion than inclusion.
It's clear that the couple in the OP are not interested in seeing baptism as a kind of life-long customer lock-in mechanism, and there are going to be a lot more people like that over the next few years. Do paedobaptist churches have anything that responds to that concern, other than a lecture on European schism and directions for the nearest baptist church? I really struggle to see how the presumed intentions behind the parents' act are in any sense "wrong". They want to send a message that their child is not "a catholic baby" or "an anglican baby", and all of us ought surely to be able to applaud their theological understanding of the Church universal on this point.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I share Melon's reservations...
It seems to me that pete173's comment seems to be in the lines of "Paul seems to be thinking that it's is dreadful, therefore it must be dreadful" with no arguments why the course of action (and the sentiments) he suggests are needed (aside from the canons thing).
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door and what the Liturgical Movement thinks about adult initiation.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
anabaptism remains the dark secret that means we'll never be fully welcome.
I'm not sure who is fully welcome - the ecumenical theology I did confirmed me in my view that the only worthwhile ecumenism is that which is locally expressed in answer to local needs by people who aren't that interested in church politics. I haven't yet spotted a single doctrinal issue that at least one signed up church can't sign up for.
My experience of ecumenism at college was a double weighted module which was co-taught with a Catholic seminary, great opportunity for mutual understanding which was slightly spoiled for me when I noticed that, while we were very welcome to receive a blessing during Mass at the seminary, not a single Catholic student was willing to receive a blessing during communion at our college.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I share Melon's reservations...
Which ones?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
About a kind of ecumenism that is not really ecumenical, about the non-convincing arguments in this thread that were put forth against the practice, and about today's practices not being consistent with the practices of our past.
[ 14. January 2007, 14:06: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I agree that baptism is not the only problem in ecumenism (at the risk of absurd understatement), and that on some of the other issues you'd find that methodists would have more in common with baptists than with roman catholics. However, it seems to me that baptism causes a particular problem because
- It's seen by many as connected to membership, and membership tends to be central to the concerns of church leaders
- It's one of the two sacraments that everyone agrees on, so refusing to pay lip-service to agreeing about even those two sacraments makes an already perilous exercise in looking for lowest common denominators seem doomed
- Unlike communion (where what everyone does looks superficially similar despite enormous underlying differences in theology), anabaptism (in the "believer's baptism" form) is superficially very different to paedobaptism (and, also, there are pretty big differences in theology)
- Paedobaptists sometimes seem to see the mere existence of anabaptism as saying that their churchmanship is wrong and their own salvation is in doubt.
But, again, the issue in the OP isn't what the evil anabaptists get up to. More by luck than judgement, their alternative view on ecclesiology and baptism looks quite zeitgeisty at the moment (the tables were turned half a millenium ago). The OP issue is that the carefully and comparatively recently-spun ecumenical understanding of baptism doesn't work for at least one set of parents. If their case is far from unique, and likely to become more common, and if, in addition, the whole "one baptism" reasoning is actually bad proof-texting, wouldn't it make sense to take a step back and ask if it's about time to reinvent paedobaptism, again?
[ 14. January 2007, 14:29: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, clearly if the vicar did know what was going on, it needs to be taken up. If not with him, I'd get the RC priest to talk to the Area Dean so that the information on this guy's cluelessness can be fed back to the Bishop.
<Mutter, mutter..irascible old fogey mode> What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
My response might have been to invite the entire family to renew their baptismal vows using the liturgy from New Patterns. There would have been creed, water, a prayer of blessing, and a sprinkling for all, combined with a clear statement that the Child was already baptised but that this was a communal ecumenical act of support a rededication for everyone.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
At the risk of derailing this thread entirely I've heard that one of the big evo Anglican churches in Oxford re-baptises...apparently its not that unusual in evo Anglican circles. Does anyone know more about this?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The OP issue is that the carefully and comparatively recently-spun ecumenical understanding of baptism doesn't work for at least one set of parents.
Isn't it more that it doesn't seem to be working for that vicar?
The OP cites an issue about Anglican/Catholic ecumenism, and it seems fairly clear that both are agreed that 'once only baptism' in either is regarded as valid for both, and re-baptism is not regarded as valid in either.
Having said which I'm not really sure what the issue is in terms of salvation. Presumably the second baptism is just surplus to requirements rather than acting as an anti-baptism to invalidate the first?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I'd be inclined to report it directly to the Bishop - except that Mrs. Trisagion is employed there, which makes it really difficult.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Isn't it more that it doesn't seem to be working for that vicar?
The push for a double baptism presumably came from the parents. However clueless the minister, I can't imagine him offering a "2 for 1" deal to baptismal parties leaving the catholic church. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Having said which I'm not really sure what the issue is in terms of salvation. Presumably the second baptism is just surplus to requirements rather than acting as an anti-baptism to invalidate the first?
I've never got a straight answer from anyone who doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration as to what the salvation implications of a first baptism are. AFAICT, we agree that God can save the unbaptised, and that baptism doesn't guarantee salvation. If baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient, why does it matter whether the number of times it happens is zero, one or two? If, as is often suggested, infant baptism is about introducing the child to the church, why is being introduced twice (or once each to different parts of the same family) an unmitigated disaster?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
About a kind of ecumenism that is not really ecumenical, about the non-convincing arguments in this thread that were put forth against the practice, and about today's practices not being consistent with the practices of our past.
Oh I see.
Does that mean that you think that ecumenism should be based on something other than the recognition of our common baptismal dignity?
So am I now to take it that you have reached a position where you are happy that a child baptised by and Orthodox priest, who later wishes to manifest his faith by joining a Protestant Church that believes in "believers baptism" (by which they mean "believers-only baptism) should be "re-baptised"?
Does this mean that you agree with Melon that a couple where one is a Catholic and one an Orthodox should have two baptisms in order to better express that which we should "applaud" as best expressing "their understanding of the Church universal"?
Do I take that you believe the credal affirmation of one baptism is not to be understood in the way that the Fathers have consistently understood it and that the First Council of Nicaea was wrong when it concluded that individuals should only be "re-baptised" if their first baptism had not been Trinitarian?
Not that your answers to these questions help me resolve the issues identified in the OP, but then I don't suppose that was what you were seeking to do anyway.
[ 14. January 2007, 16:30: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
So do anabaptists anabaptise more than once?
It isn't the norm, but I've seen it done at least once in a baptist church, and I don't think that the notion is anywhere near as much of a "no go" area as for paedobaptists.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Does that mean that you think that ecumenism should be based on something other than the recognition of our common baptismal dignity?
Common to whom?
quote:
So am I now to take it that you have reached a position where you are happy that a child baptised by and Orthodox priest, who later wishes to manifest his faith by joining a Protestant Church that believes in "believers baptism" (by which they mean "believers-only baptism) should be "re-baptised"?
That's a clear articulation of what I see as the whole problem here. If the child baptised by the Orthodox priest is leaving the Orthodox tradition, the opinion of the Orthodox priest about what should happen next surely matters less than that of the child who is now an adult, and less than that of the community the child is moving to. Insisting that the adult baptised as a child is stuck with the decisions of the parents whatever his or her own faith seems close to me to uttering a hex on people who leave your brand of church. "If you leave your spiritual home, know that you can never be at home with those anabaptists without committing HERESY"... Whatever the theology, that sort of approach sucks pastorally.
quote:
Does this mean that you agree with Melon that a couple where one is a Catholic and one an Orthodox should have two baptisms in order to better express that which we should "applaud" as best expressing "their understanding of the Church universal"?
I didn't say that they should do this, and I think the norm would be one baptism. What I'm saying is that behind the inconvenient DIY praxis is an inkling of something quite good, and that majoring on that in any pastoral response seems like a much better plan than scolding them for having used the wrong colour pen to tick your administrative boxes. Jesus never taught that pouring expensive ointment over the carpet was a sacrament, but he was smart enough to focus on intentions rather than ritual when it happened.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I think Edward Green's solution is a wise one (because I don't often get to agree with him ), although it's not a lot of use after the event as in this specific case.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the risk of derailing the thread, it might be of interest that there is an 'Anabaptist Network' in the UK which includes people at Bristol Baptist College, Stuart Murray-Williams and his 'emerging'/post-christendom anabaptist connections and like-minded folk across the traditional denominations - including Anglican vicars.
I hasten to add that the emphasis here is the 'Anabaptist' one of peace (a la the Quakers), radical lifestyle, non-Erastian Christianity etc.
All of which emphases don't necessarily presuppose a believers'-only baptism to my mind. I can understand how a CofE vicar could explore these areas and more and remain a committed paedobaptist.
Interestingly, Murray-Williams speaks appreciatively of the Donatists in his book 'Post Christendom' so what we might be seeing here is a reintroduction of old 'heresies'( ![[Confused]](confused.gif) was Donatism a heresy or simply an overly rigorous approach to the issue of human frailty with elements of perfectionism?).
I've got a lot of time for the Anabaptist tradition (other than in its Munzer/Munster monstrous phase)but I'm always suspicious when it starts drafting Lollards and Waldensians and even Cathars and Albigensians to its cause - as though anything non-Catholic/non-Erastian was ipso facto kosher.
Anyway, as to the main point of the OP. I've been in believers'-only baptism circles for the last 20-odd years but I still find the vicar's approach puzzling. Presumably he sees the RC and Anglican baptisms as mutually reinforcing. I'd have thought that one would have sufficed in either/or of the parents' churches given that, whatever their understanding of baptism, they were coming from a paedobaptist perspective.
An odd one and no mistake.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Trisagion
quote:
Not that your answers to these questions help me resolve the issues identified in the OP, but then I don't suppose that was what you were seeking to do anyway.
I assumed that you wanted a broader dialog about two baptisms, than just advice on how to act. After all, this is not Ecclesiantics.
I find myself unease when Christians of different denominations unite to... condemn the practices of other Christians!
Plus, I would expect a bishop to argue in a greater extent in a thread on Purgatory as to why more than one baptisms are a no-no.
This does not mean that I agree with the solutions Melon gives! I share a feeling with him, not an idea!
Back to your questions... I have read in the newspapers that it is a common practice in Greece among couple of Roman Catholics - Greek Orthodox to marry first in the Roman Church, and then in the Orthodox Church, since the Roman Church accepts Orthodox marriages, so they couldn't marry them in the Roman Church if they have been married in the Orthodox Church first, but the Orthodox do not accept marriages performed in the Roman catholic Church, so they get married in the Orthodox Church after they have been married in the Roman Church.
I am using this example to show that things are not exactly as smooth as we would like them to be.
You speak of the practice of the one church, as expressed in Nicea. I will use another example to show that your reading of Nicea is not the only one...
Abbot Placide was baptized when he became an Orthodox. If Nicea defined baptism the way you think it does, then surely a Roman Catholic abbot would not be re-baptized by the Orthodox! Of course, the Orthodox that baptized him think that he was baptized, and not "re-baptized", but you will disagree with them!
Things are not smooth, dear Trisagion. Things are not smooth, nor easy to resolve.
[ 14. January 2007, 17:15: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyway, as to the main point of the OP. I've been in believers'-only baptism circles for the last 20-odd years but I still find the vicar's approach puzzling. Presumably he sees the RC and Anglican baptisms as mutually reinforcing. I'd have thought that one would have sufficed in either/or of the parents' churches given that, whatever their understanding of baptism, they were coming from a paedobaptist perspective.
I think my main concern is that by his actions and statements, which he no doubt intended to be cuddly and inclusive, he has in fact created an unecessarily pastoral complicated situation for that family - unless one of them happens to be doing a PhD in baptismal doctrine and theology in a post-Christendom culture and is using it as a worked example.
Much better to have explained to them the practical complications of doing it twice and offering a topping up/affirmation service as EG suggests - which is the sort of thing that Common Worship is particularly good at IMO.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but I'm always suspicious when it starts drafting Lollards and Waldensians and even Cathars and Albigensians to its cause - as though anything non-Catholic/non-Erastian was ipso facto kosher.
I'm suspicious too, and the Cathars and Albigensians still look wonky today. However, the early Waldensians did rebaptise, and, looking back through the lens of the reformation, their unique doctrines were odd more than heretical. They dropped some of their distinctives (such as rebaptism and women preachers) after the catholic church declared open season, and they abandoned their other distinctives when Farel told them to a few hundred years later, but, as far as it is possible to tell from the sketchy sources available, the first generation did look a lot like anabaptists. I've seen catholic books containing a list of the waldensian heresies that looks a lot like a non-conformist statement of faith.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....
It is?
I'd certainly not want to base any theology or training on the symbolism of that.
In more ANglican churches than I can name around here, the font is either portable (brought out to the front of the church for baptisms) or permanently installed at the front. Our cathedral, for example, has theirs installed on a platform on the lectern side of the chancel steps. A final parting gift from our current bishop when he moved up from being Dean.
The problem with fonts at entrances, expecially when you have fixed pews, is that under our regulations baptism normally only happens at the main service on a Sunday (or Easter Eve). So if part way through the service the priest and the family up and parade to the back of the church, it leaves almost the entire congregation effectively cut out of participation -- and specifically, cut out of their role as witnesses to the event.
JOhn
[ 14. January 2007, 18:05: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So if part way through the service the priest and the family up and parade to the back of the church, it leaves almost the entire congregation effectively cut out of participation -- and specifically, cut out of their role as witnesses to the event.
A problem solved sometime in the Precambrian Era by a technological innovation known as "turning round".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents?
What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?
With regards to the mother – nothing. She isn’t under your jurisdiction, and she has acted openly and honestly with her priest, to whom she is accountable. That he has (from both Catholic and Anglican viewpoints) let her down by making a fairly fundamental error is unfortunate, but not your business.
The father, being Catholic, presumably has a priest to whom he regularly confesses. I think he should be told that he ought to mention it to his confessor. That priest can then enquire into the reasons why the father acted as he did. If he attends Mass daily, he must have some idea that what he was doing was not going to be approved of, and that’s probably why he concealed it.
The father may have acted under pressure, or through ignorance, or simply not thought the matter through. Or he may have wilfully disobeyed his Church’s teachings. I don’t know. I think (as a protestant) that it is primarily a matter for his own conscience, but since his conscience as a Catholic ought to lead him to the confessional, I think he should be strongly encouraged to raise the matter there. He can then be instructed or corrected as appropriate.
quote:
What do we say to the Vicar about this business?
That’s more difficult.
I think the vicar was wrong – but I can see some real value on the message he was trying to give. He wanted (going by your report of his words) to say that this baby was being initiated into both the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church, that there was no contradiction involved in that, and that the this was a good thing.
And I sympathise greatly with that, because I am an Anglican, and because I think that all Christians ought to be united, and that I would love it to be the case that a person (or a family) could genuinely and fully be in communion with both the Anglican and the RC churches. I think it is a sin and a tragedy that they cannot.
However, one sort of unity that we do have is a common baptism – it is not the full unity we ought to have, but it is something. It is real, and it matters, that we all see baptism as a single sacramental event that marks a point of entry into the Church, even if we then disagree about what makes the Church.
The vicar’s error was to conduct a service aimed at celebrating a form of Christian unity which is desirable and right, but which unfortunately does not exist, at the expense of not acknowledging the actual, though imperfect, unity which we in fact have. In terms of theology and procedure, it is a serious error, but I can’t see that it is a very great personal sin.
I think the right approach is to speak to him about his comments on ecumenism, and start from the point of agreement – that it is good that Anglicans and Catholics can cooperate and that a family can find support from both denominations. And then say, that rebaptism is a problem for Catholics, because it is meant to be once-and-for-all and that while you acknowledge Anglican baptisms as being just as valid as Catholic ones, repeating the ceremony is always going to be a stumbling block for you, because Catholic doctrine says it cannot be done. If you are permitted to do so, you might suggest that if the situation arises in the future for a mixed-denomination couple, a combined service of baptism with clergy from both parents’ churches present, would both be a better expression of unity, and also avoid offending the Catholic conscience.
I don’t think reporting this to the Anglican bishop is the right thing to do. It would only cause friction between the local churches, and may alienate one or both parents from their Christian community. It might also put a strain on their marriage, particularly if the father was acting from real or imagined pressure, as might have been the case. It could not possibly help in the pastoral care of either parent, or of the child, by either church, if this is made an official complaint, and that should be an important concern.
quote:
What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?
Same as the Catholic, AFAIK.
My own views (so that you know where I’m coming from) are that baptism is a sacrament which ordinarily should be done once and only once. If a baptism is valid, then the person is baptised and will always be baptised, and no repetition of the ceremony can make them any more baptised. But I’m not at all worried if someone is baptised again. I don’t think the second baptism does any harm. If a Christian is in any doubt as to whether he has been baptised ‘properly’ (in the right way, by the right person, in the right frame of mind, etc) then I think re-baptising to quieten his conscience is acceptable – because an error of baptism theology is not so great a bar to Christian discipleship as (what may be) a lifetime’s anxiety over whether one’s salvation is at risk.
There are circumstances (though this does not seem like one) where I would say baptising a child twice is likewise the lesser of two errors – for example if the two parents had grave doubts as to whether the other’s denomination was Christian at all. So I’m more liberal on the subject than official Anglican doctrine is.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am still interested in knowing what the theological implications are of being baptised twice in this way, for those ascribing to the beliefs of the Anglican and RC churches. Does it actually matter in some way for the child's spiritual status - or is it just poor practice and a redundant act ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Oops, crosspost - but if you weren't more liberal than standard anglican teaching, what implication would it have ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am still interested in knowing what the theological implications are of being baptised twice in this way, for those ascribing to the beliefs of the Anglican and RC churches. Does it actually matter in some way for the child's spiritual status - or is it just poor practice and a redundant act ?
It doesn't matter for the child's status. It was baptised at the RC church and then got wet at the Anglican church the next day. However, the second attempt presents a very confused view of what baptism is and actually far from being ecumenical it re-inforces splits by implying that we are baptised into a denomination not into the Church. It's not just poor practice but appalling theology. That's why I think the bishop needs to be informed. Contra Eliab, I think the bishop (or his representative) needs to know about this. I do not think that needs to put pressure on the family involved but the priest has acted against the doctrine of his church and put out a very confused message. Letting him carry on doing so is a bad plan. It should not have to be confrontational, but bishops have a duty of oversight and that is needed here. The bishop's involvement would be with the priest not the family though.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....
It is?
I'd certainly not want to base any theology or training on the symbolism of that.
Well I suppose I'm just lucky you weren't my liturgy tutor then! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
The thing that puzzles me is what the Anglican priest thought he was doing. I can understand an Anglican priest who may (after discussion) baptise an oolder person who wishes to be rebaptised for some reason (though I don't think I'd do it myself) and I can understand a priest who baptised the baby again because s/he didn't think to ask if there had already been a baptism or wasn't sure about the validity of that baptism - but if you believe baptism is a once for all act, and you know it has been done once, how can you baptise again? It does imply that really the vicar in question sees baptism it as a mere ritual or symbolic act and not as a sacrament at all.
I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What to do?
What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents? What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?
What do we say to the Vicar about this business? What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?
...(but any perspectives will be gratefully received)...
I am certainly not the answer to every Catholic question, but it seems to me:
1) The Catholic pastoral team must, under the guise of a follow-up visit/meeting, find out how the child is to be raised. I think it's safe to predict the answer is "None of the above." For this reason, you must avoid being negative. You don't want to send them packing. Invite them, make them welcome, don't judge, but make it clear that for the good of the child a choice must be made.
2) None of the Episcopal priests I know would have knowingly done a second baptism, so I'm hoping this Anglican was no exception. As far as breaches go, keep your mouth shut.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...
I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....
It is?
I'd certainly not want to base any theology or training on the symbolism of that.
Well I suppose I'm just lucky you weren't my liturgy tutor then!
And when you are involved with a church where the font is not at the door....
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
You seem to be making incredibly heavy weather out of what was essentially a throwaway remark in response to Pete173 being crusty.
If you're all happy in your neck of the woods with the font at the front of the church, far be it for me to say you're missing out on the opportunity to communicate some important truths about baptism and the Christian life symbolically and non-verbally by not having the font at the point of entry into the church and not enabling people to journey to it.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
Trisagion, were you at the anglican service? Was it really a baptism, or was it a dedication or thanksgiving which an observer, seeing a similar-ish form, thought was baptism?
That question is just one reason why I don't think the bishop or area dean need be involved. Have the anglican minister round for supper or a drink and raise the topic yourself.
The family had inter-personal issues as well as their child's spiritual welfare in mind when they asked for two services. It won't be possible to involve a new party, a bishop or area dean, without news leaking out to the family.
If the second service was indeed a baptism, then the anglican minister showed wrong albeit pastorally-driven judgment. But the real sinners in this are the ecclesiocrats who persist in forcing Wisdom of Solomon situations upon people with communion rules which have nothing to do with theology and everything to do with turf protection. Dead Horse or not, fix that before anyone picks on its baptism or marriage victims.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) That's dreadful! Makes the "double" baptism look tame by comparison!
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
However, the second attempt presents a very confused view of what baptism is and actually far from being ecumenical it re-inforces splits by implying that we are baptised into a denomination not into the Church. It's not just poor practice but appalling theology.
Only if you think the Bible clearly teaches once-per-lifetime baptism as a mechanism that changes your status in the heavenlies, which a very large chunk of "the Church" alive today doesn't. if you are worried about "ecumenical", it's a bit odd to dismiss the views of a large and growing section of the One Body at the term-defining stage.
The Church as a whole does have a confused view of what baptism is (ie we don't all agree). If you meant that what happened is a poor match for a bilateral agreement between anglicans and roman catholics to stretch a point in the name of ecumenical dialogue, I agree, but that's hardly the same thing. From the discussion above, it sounds like replacing the anglican church with an orthodox one would have made a difference, which, if true (I have no idea), rather undermines the "all right-thinking non-anabaptists" undercurrent of this thread.
Previous generations may have been willing not to dwell on the madness of, for example, evangelical paedobaptists doubting the salvation of some roman catholics but insisting that the baptism carried out by the apostate church was valid (or vice versa), but that sort of smoke and mirrors act just doesn't wash with the generation currently making babies.
A 'baptism plus thanksgiving' sort of formula might have worked, but if the catholic and anglican priests had both said 'one baptism, his place or mine, choose!', there might have been no baptism at all, as the parents rejected a faith that was more interested in perpetuating the divisions of the Wars of Religion than in welcoming their child.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
