homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » A lay person baptising in defiance of their priest (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: A lay person baptising in defiance of their priest
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a previous thread someone raised the scenario of a lay person baptising an infant in an invitation only ceremony after their priest had refused to do so. I commented:
quote:

However the idea of a lay person doing a baptism against the explicit decision of the local priest needs to be commented on: this is a direct act of rebellion against church order, and the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her that it will result in their excommunication - or at least should, if the bishop has any understanding of their responsibility.

To which Greyface replied:
quote:

I'm astonished you think priests should have this power given your position on Holy Tradition. On the precise question of Church order, I took no oaths to obey priests when I was confirmed nor did my parents and godparents take oaths on my behalf to do so when I was baptised. I am not in holy orders. It's vanishingly unlikely that I would ever be asked to baptise someone against the wishes of the parish priest, and it's even more unlikely that I would be unable to find a way out of the problem by spreading the net a little wider than one denomination and one parish, but if push came to shove I would act according to my conscience, not the orders of one priest.

Which didn't come as a surprise, but has made me think it through a bit further. The logic which I've found to underpin my initial intuition is as follows: the sacraments - baptism and communion - are the work of the church as a collective body, not the possession of an individual. To the extent that you are a member of a specific church, your doing the sacraments must be in accord with that church's understanding - the sacraments being what it is to be a church. Whilst it may be legitimate to do a hole in the wall baptism if your church has no view on the matter, once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part. Therefore by carrying out the baptism, or actively participating in it, you are resigning from your congregation; the statement of 'excommunication' is merely a reflection of the reality of what you have done.

It's very striking how alien this logic is to our individualistic mindset. We emphasis the role of the individual and God, and tend to ignore the role of the church. That my logic seems so alien to us is a symptom of how we tend to think - but it doesn't make it right... It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either [Help]

--------------------
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
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed. How terrifying. People holding Eucharistic celebrations in their own houses. It'd be like the New Testament!

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Firstly, there aren't being baptised into one specific community, but rather the church universal. But yes, on the other hand, the community they appear in for baptism usually has some significance for the people involved and so the community gets the chance to welcome the child and give them their support.

Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest. So long as it's done with water and in the name of the Trinity. For instance, it may be necessary to baptise a child who is dying or has a shortened life expectancy that wouldn't allow enough time for a community to gather or for a priest to come and do it.

In cases where a cleric may refuse to perform a baptism (or a marriage or confirmation for that matter), I think it's the general rule among the members of the Anglican Communion to have right of appeal to the archdeacon and to (under his and the Bishops auspices) to 'employ' a priest to carry out the function in the church and before it's community.

It's extremely rare, as far as I know, for baptism to be refused. The only instance I can think of is when the parents and godparents have made it eminently clear that they despise the church, reject the Gospel and are only doing it for the party afterwards. I have to say I have never come across this personally, probably because people who hold the church and Gospel in contempt aren't likely to present their children for baptism.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either [Help]

Free indeed - and have done so many times. Sharing bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus? Yes indeed.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ender's Shadow:
quote:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest. This should clarify it for some - though others don't see the problem here either
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.

A baptism is different. The person baptized is baptized even by a lay Christian and IMO even one who only trusts in Christ without a complete theological picture. So if the person baptized is a child, what are you going to do, cut that innocent from the life of the church by shunning the parent? Because that is what excommunication essentially is.

--------------------
"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
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whilst it may be legitimate to do a hole in the wall baptism if your church has no view on the matter, once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.

(my emphasis)

Except that baptism is not something you are "only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part." It is quite explicitly something you are doing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I can't see how on earth it's impossible to claim that baptism is something you're only doing in the name of your local congregation, on either a literal or a theological level.

quote:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest
Except that in virtually all denominations, laypeople are explicitly not allowed to preside at the Eucharist, while in virtually all denominations, laypeople are explicitly allowed to baptize. The validity of baptism as a sacrament is not believed to depend on the person baptizing being in valid orders. e.g., the Roman Catholic Church recognizes people baptized by someone who is not an RC priest as being baptized.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is an interesting challenge here, as to how wide a priests authority stretches. While they do have authority within their church community and activities, it does not extend to people outside the community. Probably.

So if a minister (irrespective of demonination) made it clear that they would not baptise a member of their church, for whatever reason, then it would be wrong for any other member to perform that baptism. That is a point where you have to choose between staying in the church and leaving, and if it is so important for you, I would say leaving is the only choice.

Where it is for someone outside the community of that church, for a member to baptise them when the minister has refused is, IMO, perfectly reasonable, assuming that the reasons are justified. The minister may have a reason for not baptising them within the context of their fellowship, while the member can baptise them into the wider community of Christ.

It is one of my bugbears that the Church likes to establish its authority. Baptism in about the Christian faith, not the Church community. It should be done as baptism into the faith, with other people of faith around. That does not mean into a specific Church Community.

Eucharist in your own house? I would always be for that. I realise that the CofE has a problem over this, but then I was never very good at obeying rules. At the end of the day, I believe that the expression of my faith is about ministering to other people, helping them to engage with God. Sometimes this happens within a church community, but I am finding more and more that it very often happens outside that.

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ender's Shadow:
quote:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest.
an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
Disagree. Doing communion at home, no clergy anywhere in sight, is what turned me from memorialist to "there is something spiritual going on!" But the fact that the something spiritual goes on at my hand (and other lay hands) is proof enough that you don't have to be ordained to be effective. :-)

Of course, it also disproves the limited concept of apostolic succession endorsed by churches that use that term, or anyway disproves that only people in the "apostolic succession" line can be spiritually effective this way.

As to Real Presence, I prefer "something spiritual" to making a declaration that cannot be shown true or false as to exactly what the "something spiritual" is. Although I'm sure some will say "most be negative spirituality, God is not allowed to bless anything the church disapproves of." Such a limited God we have?

[ 10. December 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.

But is a priest even empowered to say "This child should not be baptised" (as opposed to "I don't intend to baptise this child")?

I hope not. It would seem to be passing the keys of the kingdom from St Peter to the local vicar. I didn't think even Popes claimed this sort of power ... [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Lynda*Rose points out, this completely depends on what you believe about Communion and the kind of church you attend. For most churches outside the Anglican or Catholic traditions, a group of people sharing bread and wine at their home wouldn’t be a big deal. But most would expect the prayers to be said by “someone in good standing” within the congregation. But even for the churches where it would be, I’m not sure that one of the reasons that would spring to mind for not doing it would be the threat of excommunication. Sledge hammer and nut maybe?!

I’m not entirely convinced about the Baptism either. From the thread, it sounds like one Priest had refused to do it for reasons they considered valid and they were planning to ask another one. A DIY Baptism sounded like it was going to be the last resort.

It’s a difficult one to call – do you Baptise someone who doesn’t come regularly in the hope that it will draw them closer, or do you refuse on the basis that you need to be close in order to ask? I’m not sure, but in the equivalent situation that I have first hand experience of – a Baptist minister who refused to marry Christians to non-Christians – every couple who was refused left the church. Some went elsewhere and the non-Christian found faith elsewhere. Others ended up having to deal with a spouse who went from supportive to hostile on the basis that if the church doesn’t want to marry us, then screw them.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's extremely rare, as far as I know, for baptism to be refused.

I know of at least one case where a priest refused baptism because the parents were unmarried - this despite the fact that he regularly offers communion to two prominent members of the church choir who are not only unmarried but in a state of flagrant adultery.

The parents went to a different church which was quite happy to baptise them and are now active and regular members.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose it's always possible to find a complete tit of a priest as an example. I think it's a pity though, if they don't make a formal complaint to the diocese and Bishop. This is not normal practice.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But is a priest even empowered to say "This child should not be baptised" (as opposed to "I don't intend to baptise this child")?

I hope not. It would seem to be passing the keys of the kingdom from St Peter to the local vicar. I didn't think even Popes claimed this sort of power ... [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused]

At least one semi-famous historical example comes to mind where someone should've said "Hey, don't do this baptism!".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ender's Shadow:
quote:
It perhaps helps to consider whether you feel free to carry out a communion in your home without the presence of a priest.
an apostolic succession, Real Presence believer wouldn't think anything happened at such a communion but some nice words, a bite, and a sip.
Disagree. Doing communion at home, no clergy anywhere in sight, is what turned me from memorialist to "there is something spiritual going on!" But the fact that the something spiritual goes on at my hand (and other lay hands) is proof enough that you don't have to be ordained to be effective. :-)

Of course, it also disproves the limited concept of apostolic succession endorsed by churches that use that term, or anyway disproves that only people in the "apostolic succession" line can be spiritually effective this way.

As to Real Presence, I prefer "something spiritual" to making a declaration that cannot be shown true or false as to exactly what the "something spiritual" is. Although I'm sure some will say "most be negative spirituality, God is not allowed to bless anything the church disapproves of." Such a limited God we have?

Indeed. I'm quite content with congregations having their rules about who can officiate at a communion service held under the auspices of that denomination, but in the same way that I don't expect the CofE to come down on me like a ton of bricks if I receive communion at some house church somewhere at the hands of someone who makes no claim to be part of any apostolic succession (not that that's particularly likely), I would not expect that they should have a problem if it were to happen in my house, as long as I wasn't claiming it was an Anglican Eucharist service.

I probably would not officiate myself, as I want to consider myself an Anglican, but it's not to say that I consider there's anything inherently wrong with so doing; I recall Jesus saying "do this as often as you drink it", and "where two or more are gathered in my name", and so on, but never recall him saying anything about the magic words only working if a priest says them.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's be clear about this, ES. I'm not talking about random drive-by baptisms or acting on a whim. Say you encounter someone desperately wanting baptism, having been refused it by the local priest. No other avenues are open to you - perhaps this person is near death and there's no time to appeal to the hierarchy or quietly suggest that they might like to be a Methodist, or that Father Jack just across the parish boundary would be more amenable. You have the details and disagree with the priest's decision. What do you do?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A priest is not the church. The people of God are the church, which is why my denom reserves excommunication to the whole assembly and not to a single person.

And in this case, what is contemplated is not excommunication, but something even worse-- the forcible withholding of the baptism of forgiveness and regeneration from a sinner. In this case, a helpless child. Call it refusal-of-communication-at-all. Not even St. Peter, or the very living and universal church of Christ in all ages, may forbid that. Who are we to refuse what the Lord has offered freely to all? There'll be a reckoning for those who slam the door of the kingdom in the faces of anyone trying to enter. God help them.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have known baptism of a child to have been refused three times.

The first, a priest in an Anglo Catholic shack refused because both parents were staunch atheists doing it because of family pressure. I was on the PCC at that church. It got a brief mention in the national press, and more extensive coverage in the local rag. Twice. At the time, and again with headlines like "Vicar who refused baptism moves on," when he moved to another part of the country.

Another I attended a baptism in a Methodist chapel because the Anglican church had similarly refused
the baptism of the children of non believers.

The third was the adopted child of lesbians.

Try talking to parents who's child has been refused baptism about you faith and it becomes very clear how much damage has been done.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Try talking to parents who's child has been refused baptism about you faith and it becomes very clear how much damage has been done.

In case #3 (adopted child of lesbians), I can very much understand why this would turn people off and think it's abhorrent.

In the first two cases (non-believers), I'm not sure why the parents would be so turned off. Can you explain a bit more the ways in which they felt damaged?

Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Importing a question from an adjacent thread probably works best when enough of a context is either imported, too, or confected, providing some sort of case to work with.

Here, all we have is: The parish priest won't do it, with no accompanying detail. So, the answers can run across the map from:

1. the priest won't baptize the kidnapped child of Jewish parents to

2. the priest won't baptize the child because the parents are a same-sex couple.

I hardly need comment on the first, while I would personally baptize the second in a New York minute.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest. So long as it's done with water and in the name of the Trinity.

And, with the intent to do what the Church does, which in extremis, let's in baptism by non-Christians, Deo gratias.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The person baptized is baptized even by a lay Christian and IMO even one who only trusts in Christ without a complete theological picture.

I hope it won't be read as tedious nitpicking to opine that no one has a complete theological picture. This is as true of the holy mysteries of the eucharist as it is of holy baptism. I'll risk even further to say that, perhaps, trust in Christ is the complete theological picture.

Finally, I hope it's useful to point out the difference between East and West. In the West, typically, the form is, "Mortimer, I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." In the East it is "The servant of God, Mortimer, is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

The divine passive in the East points out exactly who the agent of baptism is; and, fer sure, it ain't us.

[ 10. December 2012, 14:35: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Importing a question from an adjacent thread probably works best when enough of a context is either imported, too, or confected, providing some sort of case to work with.

Here, all we have is: The parish priest won't do it, with no accompanying detail. So, the answers can run across the map from:

1. the priest won't baptize the kidnapped child of Jewish parents to

2. the priest won't baptize the child because the parents are a same-sex couple.

I hardly need comment on the first, while I would personally baptize the second in a New York minute.

You may hardly need to comment on the first, but it was quite the hot topic for a time. Pope Innocent III even had to go so far as to address the forced baptism of Jewish adults on four separate occasions.

[ 10. December 2012, 14:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Take a deep breath, Crœsos. I chose your example precisely because I'm in your corner.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the first two cases (non-believers), I'm not sure why the parents would be so turned off. Can you explain a bit more the ways in which they felt damaged?

A lot of people seem to have, lurking under their atheism, some kind of spiritual longing. It's really an agnosticism. Some of my atheist friends were reared on a cold, cruel God looking for excuses to reject people and send them to hell. But they were also reared that babies have to be baptized -- not that long ago unbaptized babies in many denominations were considered "unsaved."

So they ask a church to baptize the baby, not because they believe but because they want to do the best for their baby and what if the things they were taught are true? But the church embodies the cruel rejecting God they were reared on, saying in effect "God rejects your baby." Now the cold cruel God is not just a memory from childhood, it's a present adult experience. God rejects me and mine, today.


Or it could just be that churches present themselves as being welcoming and accepting and the place to have your spiritual needs met, and so you go to have your baby baptized because you don't exactly believe except what if there really is a God and God wants babies baptized -- and the "welcome" "we represent God" place demonstrates itself to be so unwelcoming even an innocent baby is rejected. By those who say they represent God.

If God is so cold and unwelcoming and rejecting that his representatives want my baby to go to their hell, why should I respect anything they say, ever. The door to God, which had been open a tiny crack or they wouldn't be bringing the baby, is now firmly closed and locked.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I cannot picture a priest refusing to baptize a child because the parents are unmarried. Why "punish" a child for the parents' decision.

I think there is one aspect to the OP scenario that hasn't been addressed is that this is a "by invitation only" event. Excuse me, but this is not a wedding ceremony. This is an event where an individual is being welcomed into the church--a body where it is the Spirit who does the inviting, not human beings.

I am thinking the priest would have problem with this because it is a community of faith ceremony, not a private affair. It should be done in the context of the congregation, where any member may attend if they so chose.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Belle Ringer:
quote:
Of course, it also disproves the limited concept of apostolic succession endorsed by churches that use that term, or anyway disproves that only people in the "apostolic succession" line can be spiritually effective this way.
My phrase "apostolic successionist, Real Presence believer" was a bit of short hand for a very traditional, Catholic believer for whom the clear line of laying-on-of-hands is a very precise matter. Obviously there are folks such as yourself who by experience have found other definitions.

--------------------
"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
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ES:
quote:
the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her [the person doing the baptising] that it will result in their excommunication
Isn't this a rather draconian response? When my sister was doing her nurse's training the entire class were taught how to baptise babies unlikely to live. The class included Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and atheists.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was about to comment on how, to my surprise, Ender's Shadow was expressing catholic theology. Then I re-read:
quote:
once your church leader has spoken, then you are no longer free to do something which you are only doing in the name of the congregation of which you are a part.
which puts a different slant on the matter.

The Church is not the local congregation. Traditional catholic theology would suggest that the diocese, and not the parish, is the local church. In any case, it needs to be established that 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 Bishop would be perfectly justified in contradicting the priest's stance, and either compelling him/her to perform the baptism or allow another priest to do so.

Of course a lay person can baptise. But s/he only does so, as ES points out, on behalf of the Church and needs the authorisation of the Church. For a priest, that authorisation has already been given in ordination. For a lay person, baptising in an emergency, it might be assumed, and ratified afterwards when the registers are signed. It's hard to see when a lay person would need to perform a non-emergency baptism, at least in the normal circumstances of a Western parish.

--------------------
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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm in agreement with several who've already posted here. Briefly, my position is this: if the priest has offended against Church order in denying baptism, then a lay baptism is not only permissible but quite possibly prophetic.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gramps49:
quote:
I am thinking the priest would have problem with this because it is a community of faith ceremony, not a private affair. It should be done in the context of the congregation, where any member may attend if they so chose.
This is a good point. But if both the priest and the parents took a "my way or the highway" attitude on a private baptism, I'd feel for the child. Essentially, the poor thing would wind up like the putative half a baby before Solomon in regards to its Christian journey. This is why I disagree with Ender's Shadow's excommunication. The baptismal water becomes bathwater flung away with the baby in the mix. (How's that for mixing baby metaphors? [Biased] )

--------------------
"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
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357

 - Posted      Profile for roybart   Email roybart   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Croesus:
quote:
At least one semi-famous historical example comes to mind where someone should've said "Hey, don't do this baptism!".
Thanks for that link. In response to world protest of the Church's actions in the case of Edgardo Levi Mortara, Pius IX said: "I could care less less what the world thinks." I can imagine the vicar mentioned in the OP sputtering exactly the same words, with great pride and with a firm conviction that he is defending Truth, while gleefully sticking it to "the world."

It's too bad that this thread is trying to deal with two examples that are not really all that comparable: baptism and the eucharist. The "baptism" scenario seems clearly to be a misuse of clerical power. The question of the eucharist has more serious theological implications. I'm appalled by the baptism decision, but actually (to my surprise) quite ambivalent about the case of home eucharists. (I assume that we are talking about bread and wine that has not been consecrated. Or are we?)

[ 10. December 2012, 15:29: Message edited by: roybart ]

--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton

Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our current Rector has said that he will baptise each and all who ask for it, on the basis that it isn’t up to him to refuse God’s Grace, which I find myself having to agree with.

The previous Rector, when parents whom he didn’t know asked for their child to be baptised, used to agree provided that they attended as a family for a couple of months so he could ensure they had some Christian teachings “under their belt” to be able to support the child as the Baptism vows request. Which I also agree with!

Both positions seem reasonable and at the same time mutually exclusive and that drives me insane!

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I established the new thread in order to avoid discussions about 'why' the priest refused; I'm interested in whether lay members of the parish have the right to ignore that refusal (and I'm assuming that it would be supported by the bishop, not that the priest is just being difficult). It's my argument that they don't. The original thread seems the place for the other arguments. And, of course the refusal implies that we aren't dealing with the 'emergency' scenario here, where all bets are off.

--------------------
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
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think there is one aspect to the OP scenario that hasn't been addressed is that this is a "by invitation only" event. Excuse me, but this is not a wedding ceremony. This is an event where an individual is being welcomed into the church--a body where it is the Spirit who does the inviting, not human beings.

The original request was for a regular baptism as part of a regular church service open to all, as is normal. That was rejected.

Once a baptism is moved to a private house for lack of anywhere public to meet, it becomes "by invitation" only because there is room for only a few. No one is trying to separate the event from the congregation -- the congregation has been removed from the baptism by being denied the baptism taking place where the congregation can gather.

It would be an interesting theology -- this event is to be public, but we deny you any public space so you are forced against your own wishes to do it in private, but our rules say that means you can't do it at all even though you theoretically have the right from God to do it.

If weather cooperates, maybe it can be done in a public park. :-) But reserving a park for a non-civic purpose costs money for the permit.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181

 - Posted      Profile for Arch Anglo Catholic         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The CofE position is/should be even clearer than the propositions above; it is not lawful for a minister of the Established Church to refuse or delay baptism of children properly brought for baptism, provided that the rules on notice and the number of godparents are complied with.

Canon B22 is tremendously clear, giving direct appeal to the Bishop if there is either refusal or delay.
In my own case, as a clerk in holy orders, I would never refuse/have never refused to baptise a child brought by his or her parents. The gift is of God freely given, my job is to serve.

Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I established the new thread in order to avoid discussions about 'why' the priest refused; I'm interested in whether lay members of the parish have the right to ignore that refusal (and I'm assuming that it would be supported by the bishop, not that the priest is just being difficult). It's my argument that they don't.

I'm not sure that the two can be separated because the former will to a large extent determine the latter. If for example, the priest was a heretic who wouldn't baptise anyone who believed in the divinity of Christ, and the bishop happened to lack to spine to overrule him (I've already said I consider these kinds of circumstances extremely unlikely) then where do you stand?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Correction: the spine.

For the record I agree with the essence of ES's argument that it would be a serious matter. But I think we need to reserve the right to act according to conscience on this one.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Firstly, there aren't being baptised into one specific community, but rather the church universal. But yes, on the other hand, the community they appear in for baptism usually has some significance for the people involved and so the community gets the chance to welcome the child and give them their support.

Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest. So long as it's done with water and in the name of the Trinity. For instance, it may be necessary to baptise a child who is dying or has a shortened life expectancy that wouldn't allow enough time for a community to gather or for a priest to come and do it.

In cases where a cleric may refuse to perform a baptism (or a marriage or confirmation for that matter), I think it's the general rule among the members of the Anglican Communion to have right of appeal to the archdeacon and to (under his and the Bishops auspices) to 'employ' a priest to carry out the function in the church and before it's community.

Technically anyone? Looks like everyone is ignoring Reformed eccelisiology (again). In Reformed theology, Baptism in an act of the Church and cannot be done outside of the body of the Church. It must be recognized by the Session, employ the Trinitarian formula and be performed by a person authorized by the session to baptize, that is the Minister of Word & Sacrament (not Minister of Word & Holy Communion). No, laity may not in Reformed thought baptize. The example child's baptism could be and would be dismissed as outside the authority of the Session an in fact in blatant defiance of it, therefore the Nicene Creed's pronouncements do not come into effect.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I established the new thread ... I'm interested in whether lay members of the parish have the right to ignore that refusal (and I'm assuming that it would be supported by the bishop, not that the priest is just being difficult). It's my argument that they don't.

I think a comment up-thread raises an issue directly related to what you are saying, and on which we all probably disagree (as usual).

"I probably would not [do X] as I want to consider myself an Anglican, but it's not to say that I consider there's anything inherently wrong with so doing."

The specific topic was Eucharist without the presence of a clergy, but it points to the question I was about to start a different thread on. What does church membership mean?

I am Episcopalian by upbringing and familiarity and socially fitting in, not by specific theology. (I totally disagree with the concept of a separate class of "priest" with spiritual powers not accessible by lay). But I was reared, and hear many today say, you don't have to believe any specific things to be Episcopalian.

In recent years I have discovered many people in any denomination disagree with and quietly ignore at least some of their church's teachings. They don't raise a public fuss about their disagreements, they just ignore whatever they disagree with.

My Catholic friends use contraception, my Baptist friends drink alcohol, in a local church that preaches "women should not hold jobs" all the staff (except the head preacher) are low-paid men whose wives' jobs provide most of the family income plus the medical insurance.

So church as a gathering that operates by rules as any gathering must to avoid chaos, makes sense, but church as a list of rules you follow even though you are nowhere near the official gathering, is puzzling to me.

To what extent does church membership include a requirement that you act -- outside official church gatherings -- accordingly with all the intricate details of behavior-limiting theologies you don't agree with?

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
The CofE position is/should be even clearer than the propositions above; it is not lawful for a minister of the Established Church to refuse or delay baptism of children properly brought for baptism, provided that the rules on notice and the number of godparents are complied with.

Canon B22 is tremendously clear, giving direct appeal to the Bishop if there is either refusal or delay.
In my own case, as a clerk in holy orders, I would never refuse/have never refused to baptise a child brought by his or her parents. The gift is of God freely given, my job is to serve.

OK - if you persist in refusing to play the game, consider the scenario that neither of the parents are themselves baptised, but turn up demanding baptism for their baby. This is a requirement of the BCP service...

--------------------
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
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009

 - Posted      Profile for SyNoddy     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd do it, if asked, regardless of the vicar or anyone else.
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:


Technically speaking, anyone can baptise, and it's not just the role of a priest.

Technically anyone? Looks like everyone is ignoring Reformed eccelisiology (again).
This case seems pretty obviously to be Anglican. Though some Anglicans do affirm a Reformed heritage, I suspect that for most Reformed ecclesiology is as beside the point as Baptist ecclesiology.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?

Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?

Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?

The good will of the parents?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?

Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?

The good will of the parents?
In my church, there is another aspect of this -- the baptism includes a vow by the congregation to do all within its power to raise the child in the faith. The more conscientious in our congregation feel that they are taking an oath in vain when they promise to do that with a child that they have never seen before and presumably will never see again. FWIW

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I think there is one aspect to the OP scenario that hasn't been addressed is that this is a "by invitation only" event. Excuse me, but this is not a wedding ceremony. This is an event where an individual is being welcomed into the church--a body where it is the Spirit who does the inviting, not human beings.

<tangent> I believe in England that a wedding has to be open to anyone. Otherwise, someone who who knows "just cause or impediment why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony" could be excluded.</tangent>

[ 10. December 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: Higgs Bosun ]

Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431

 - Posted      Profile for Imersge Canfield   Email Imersge Canfield   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?

Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?

The good will of the parents?
In my church, there is another aspect of this -- the baptism includes a vow by the congregation to do all within its power to raise the child in the faith. The more conscientious in our congregation feel that they are taking an oath in vain when they promise to do that with a child that they have never seen before and presumably will never see again. FWIW

--Tom Clune

My understanding from what has been written here, is that this child is in church at worship, every Sunday with their grandmother.

--------------------
'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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As for the point made in the OP, I disagree. First, it is nothing less than a tragic case if a honest desire for such an essential good as baptism is due to rare circumstance somehow at odds with the good of the Church and the individual. In tragic circumstances one must always be careful to not make matters worse by harsh application of law. Second, excommunication is the harshest penalty at the Church's disposal and is reserved for the gravest offences against faith and morals. The only thing that could potentially grip here is "schism".

But simple disobedience is not schism. Or otherwise, quite frankly, the vast majority of Catholics would be actually schismatics. Schism used to be a fundamental and lasting disobedience to one's bishop. Today one might say it is a fundamental and lasting rupture with the hierarchy of one's church, and in the case of RCs, with the pope. At any rate, defying your priest by baptising your grandson is not typically the sort of action that is implied in schism. If you went around as a layperson baptising any infant you could get your hands on, after your bishop told you most clearly to stop doing that, then you are probably a schismatic. Then you are not just following an impulse to do something against the will of the clergy, where you think they have it wrong. Then you are systematically rebelling against and defying proper Church authority on important matters.

However, baptising someone when the clergy refused to do so (hopefully for good reason, see below) is merely a "regular" sin. It may be a mortal sin, and hence endanger the salvation of the perpetrator, though I would think that it could well be only a venial sin. For after all, this is a sin motivated by the good of faith, it is an ill-conceived attempt to be pleasing to God. This is not the typical sort of sin that seeks falsely a good for oneself, this sin has at least to recommend for itself that it seeks the good of another, and not merely a temporal good, but an eternal one. It shows perhaps a bit of pride (one thinks to know better than the priest), a lack of prudence, and perhaps a lack of patience and trust in God.

But it really is not an occasion for hammering the well-meaning but ill-advised with the largest club the Church can wield. In my opinion, IANACL.

For those interested: the general attitude of the RCC to the problem of people apart from the Church seeking her baptism is that if - yet only if - there is reasonable hope that the child will be raised in the faith, then it should be baptised:
quote:
Instruction on Infant Baptism. By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Approved by His Holiness Pope John Paul II October 20, 1980
Dialogue Between Pastors and Families With Little Faith or Non-Christian Families

30. It sometimes happens that pastors are approached by parents who have little faith and practice their religion only occasionally, or even by non-Christian parents who request Baptism for their children for reasons that deserve consideration. In this case the pastor will endeavor by means of a clear-sighted and understanding dialogue to arouse the parents' interest in the sacrament they are requesting and make them aware of the responsibility that they are assuming. In fact the Church can only accede to the desire of these parents if they give an assurance that, once the child is baptized, it will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. The Church must have a well-founded hope that the Baptism will bear fruit.

If the assurances given — for example, the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community of the faithful — are sufficient, the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families. If on the other hand they are insufficient, it will be prudent to delay Baptism. However the pastors should keep in contact with the parents so as to secure, if possible, the conditions required on their part for the celebration of the sacrament. If even this solution fails, it can be suggested, as a last recourse, that the child be enrolled in a catechumenate to be given when the child reaches school age.

31. These rules have already been made, and are already in force, but they require some clarifications. In the first place it must be clear that the refusal of Baptism is not a means of exercising pressure. Nor can one speak of refusal, still less of discrimination, but rather of educational delay, according to individual cases, aimed at helping the family to grow in faith or to become more aware of its responsibilities. With regard to the assurances, any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children deserves to be considered as sufficient. ...

I think there is a good analogy here to citizenship. As a citizen of a nation one has many rights and privileges, like freedom of movement with the nation, being able to work or own a business, etc. But one also has duties and obligations, like paying taxes, serving in the army in the time of war, etc. We do not give someone citizenship just because they desire the rights and privileges thereof. We must also have reasonable hope that they will comply with their duties and obligations.

To become a son or daughter of God is the greatest of rights and privileges. But it is not a life free of duties and obligations. A Christian life does not consist merely in having been baptised once upon a time. It consist in living a life pleasing to God, or at least trying to do so. This is interpreted in different ways in different churches, but for example, if one never prays to God then how can one be deemed a Christian? Children born to citizens of our nations are given their citizenship on the expectation that the parents, as citizens, will bring up their children to become citizens. A like opportunity is extended to parents by the Church concerning their children becoming Christian, with like expectations.

Mindful of the necessity of baptism, the Church will take any reasonable hope that a child will grow up to become a Christian. But if there is none, then it would be improper to baptise. It does the child no good if it grows up theoretically baptised but not living a Christian life. Even if one assumes that the former child will not be condemned for failing in Christian duties as adult, due to ignorance, their baptism of the past is not sufficient for their salvation then, their already being baptised may actually hinder their search for salvation, and certainly this mess will be attributed at least in part to those who caused it - and nobody needs more millstones around their neck. Of course, if the child is in danger of death, then these considerations must be set aside - precisely because one does not expect such an un-Christian future. But becoming part of the household of faith is not quite a matter of handing out grace freebies to simply everyone that asks.

--------------------
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
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is the theological logic of not baptising a baby (if you believe in infant baptism) ?

Not doing it doesn't make the child more likely to access the Christian faith, and if you do do it there is a least a slight chance that someone in the family will think a little more about the possibility of the Christian faith. If they don't, what has been lost ?

The good will of the parents?
I was assuming the good will of the parents - e.g. atheist parents requesting baptism for their child.

--------------------
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
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238

 - Posted      Profile for Percy B   Email Percy B   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Mary, a priest??

Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools