When I was in seminary, I wrote a killer essay on baptism. The assignment was to write a detailed parish newsletter column explaining baptism and the process for preparing infants, children and adults for the sacrament. I pulled out all the stops, wrote just what my liturgics professor wanted to read, and, had the essay actually been printed in the newsletter, I would’ve had to officiate at far more funerals than baptisms as a result of boring parishioners to death.
It’s safe to say there’s a difference between theory and practice, between seminary and ministry. I know this because the past few baptisms I’ve celebrated haven’t exactly followed the outline I dazzled my professor with. They’ve been better.
Working as a chaplain for Hospice at Home has reminded me that at life’s end, people think about tying up loose ends, and for some that loose end is baptism. I was working with a family and two of the daughters of a man who was dying said that he, his wife and another daughter hadn’t been baptized and they thought that the three of them should receive the sacrament before their father died. One thing that’s very important in providing spiritual care for the dying and their families is not to push any agenda or bias I (or the family) may have; rather it is to explore what’s meaningful for the patient and assist him or her in finding it. So we talked about baptism for a few minutes, and they decided they wanted to be baptized; and with the patient in bed and his wife and their daughter at his bedside, I asked the other daughters to find the nicest bowl in the kitchen and fill it with water from the tap. Then we gathered in a circle, and I blessed the water and baptized them.
This article is problematic on a number of levels. And I’m not talking about baptizing in a kitchen or using tap water. Churches are normally the best place for this sort of thing, but they are not essential. The question in my mind, is what exactly was he doing? What is his understanding of baptism? I am not encouraged by the frankly rather flip manner in which he seems to approach this, arguably the most important, of sacraments.
[blockquote] One thing that’s very important in providing spiritual care for the dying and their families is not to push any agenda or bias I (or the family) may have; rather it is to explore what’s meaningful for the patient and assist him or her in finding it.[/blockquote]
That sort of comment makes me wonder what faith he is representing. Baptism is not a feel good sacrament, at least in the catholic tradition. And it should not be administered lightly, even to the dying. Did those being baptized have a clue what they were doing?
A number of Episcopalians have in recent years gotten very upset when told that some Roman Catholic and Orthodox clergy are no longer giving an automatic “pass” on Episcopal baptisms among converts. I know of a number of RC parishes that with their bishop’s approval now routinely re-baptize (sub conditionale) converts from TEO. The same is true (sans the conditional) among the Orthodox. It is not yet official policy outside of a few jurisdictions (ROCOR, the Serbians and the Jerusalem Patriarchate). But it is becoming more common especially for those baptized Episcopal post 1977.
The cavalier attitude towards baptism displayed above, and even more obvious and extreme abuses (Mother Daughter Holy Spirit and other variations) are presenting serious theological problems for the clergy of other churches in dealing with TEO.
In ICXC
John
The author says that one of the baptisms was or was not a baptism – he is ambivalent -but reading through the article twice I could not spot what he was referring to, unless it was the man who first asked for baptism and then felt ‘right with God’ without being baptised.
Hospice pastoral care, or for that matter any hospital chaplaincy, has to be careful. Patients by definition are in a vulnerable place emotionally and this must not be exploited, especially bearing in mind that people may come from different faiths. But at the same time pastors have to have confidence in the teaching of the Church. I applaud the discreetness and courtesy shown by the author, but I would have preferred a little more clarity from him on what the Church teaches. If people ask ‘What does the Church say on … ?’ they are entitled to a clear answer that is faithful to tradition.
Sorry 1 & 2. Neither a theologian or presbyter here, but one who looks to the 39 Articles … in so far as they address faith and morals and things like that … as reasonable statements of what I happen to believe. When I hold your comments up against Article XXVII I find them to be less than charitable and even downright petty. Somehow doubt that He, in his infinite wisdom, would be so critical.
Re # 3
John M
As an Orthodox Christian I do not look to the 39 Articles but to the Creeds and the Consensus Patri, to which the 39 Articles do not readily conform. That said there was certainly no intent to be lacking in charity. But you will note that I began my comment by affirming the “catholic” (small ‘c’) tradition. It is a given that Protestants reject the sacramental understanding of the ancient and Apostolic Church and adhere to the symbolic nature of baptism referenced in Art. XXVII.
In ICXC
John
John (Ad Orientem) – while I understand that the manner in which some in TEC have rejected the exclusivity of Christ is reason for concern, it would not at all conform to the ancient creeds (especially the Nicene and the Athanasian) to re-baptize unless the original wasn’t done “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (and no other names). I have left TEC for ACNA, but would turn away from the door of a church with such a policy. Can you help me understand this better?
Re # 5
Montanan,
I will endeavor to answer your query as honestly as possible while trying to avoid a tone that some find triumphalist. If I fail then I ask your pardon in advance.
The traditional teaching of the Church is that there are no sacraments outside of her. Such has been and remains the consistent teaching of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. This is not because those outside the Church are necessarily evil people. But rather because the Holy Mysteries are not magic. The sacraments belong to the Church. They function by and through the cooperation of the Holy Spirit in unity with the whole Church, not independently of her.
Further the creeds speak of only one Church, not many. And it was the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the Church was both one and visible. Now later in the First Millennium under the influence of Blessed Augustine of Hippo the Christian West began to adopt a dualistic approach to the nature of the Church whereby it was conceived possible to be outside the canonical boundaries of the Church and yet still mystically connected on at least some level. This concept has been expanded upon by the Roman Church and is one of the main reasons why they tend to accept the “validity” of non-Catholic baptisms and in some cases other sacraments.
However this theologumena, as with many others expounded by Augustine, has never gained acceptance in the Christian East. The Church is not multidimensional and Augustine’s views are inconsistent with the Consensus Patri. That view reduces the sacraments to a sort of magic [right form + right matter= sacrament]. It also explains why Roman Catholics are disposed to worry about the minutia of forms and words in the rites of Holy Orders among those non-Catholic groups who claim them (i.e. Old Catholics), when the Fathers would have simply looked at them and said “you are heretics and your sacraments are without grace.”
As for the question of “re”-baptizing, there are cases where it is done and where it is not. But in no case does the decision not to perform an Orthodox baptism imply acceptance of the grace or validity of non-Orthodox sacraments. In those instances where a convert is received via confession and Holy Chrismation it is done by economy. What the Church is saying in those cases is that it is satisfied that the convert received a non-Orthodox baptism that was close enough in both form and intent to an Orthodox baptism that whatever was lacking can be filled through the Mystery of Chrismation. Thus Catholics who enter Orthodoxy are normally only confessed and Chrismated and Roman Clergy, after being Chrismated are (with the blessing of the bishop) simply vested and not (re)-ordained.
But in cases where there is any doubt about the form or intent of those involved in the baptism including the nature of what they are doing, then the convert is always baptized. Baptism is the normative means of receiving converts. However out of economy and with due regard to the laxity mandated by the canons of some of the early councils (but only to specific groups), economy can be, and very often is exercised if it is seen to promote a greater good.
The ultimate decision rests with local church synods and indeed the local bishops.
One important thing to note, is that when we say there are no sacraments outside the Church, this does not mean that non-Orthodox sacraments are utterly without merit and serve no good. The Church places no limits (and indeed cannot) on what God may or may not choose to do in His mercy or where and to whom He may choose to extend it. The Fathers and many of the saints affirm that the Church does not teach what the sacraments of the heterodox do, only what they do not do.
For a more detailed explanation I refer you to [url=http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox.pdf]this excellent work[/url] by Mr. Patrick Barnes which can be found in it’s entirety at the linked site.
Yours under the mercy,
John
To my critic in no 3 above: I think that part of the purpose of a site like this is to encourage discussion, debate and criticism. That is why articles are posted.
John (Ad Orientem) #6 – thank you; well stated. Now I understand the practice (at least in the Eastern Church).
#3 is correct to point to the Articles of Religion as an Anglican discussing baptism on an Anglican site. It is indeed one of the pleasures of this site however that we get the benefit of the views of, if not members of other denominations, at least the benefit of former Anglicans who have converted to those other denominations who vary from Terry Tee who is always a model of courtesy and wisdom to Ad Orientem who is generally a model of courtesy and wisdom. However, for those who are not, there is a problem for them: if they go too far in dissing their former denomination, then they of course lay open to question their own baptisms!
Ad Orientem says: “It is a given that Protestants reject the sacramental understanding of the ancient and Apostolic Church and adhere to the symbolic nature of baptism referenced in Art. XXVII.”
No – Baptism is one of two Sacraments recognised by Anglicans [Article XXV]. The understanding may vary from that of some Orthodox, but that is not to say that our understanding is not sacramental.
The key though to any trinitarian church’s understanding of Baptism is that it is valid if done with Water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost or Spirit. Even the attrocious Genpo had the sense not to change this when baptising a child.
However, if a formula other than baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is used, then there is a real problem, not only for Catholics or the Orthodox, but for other Anglicans, and it may be that we would have to regard such an Episcopalian baptism [which is presumably in any event in breach of TEC’s own doctrine] as problematical and open to doubt.