An interesting article on the NCR site by Joshua McElwee on the recent controversy surrounding the wording used in Baptism: https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/i-or-we-vatican-sparks-baptism-controversy-isnt-so-controversial:
"For those still scratching their heads, theologian and Charity of Leavenworth Sr. Susan Wood explains it succinctly. "What the 'I' means is that the person who is baptizing is acting in place of Christ," Wood, a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, now the academic dean of Regis College, the Jesuit School of Theology at the University of Toronto, told NCR. "Christ is the primary actor in all the sacraments. It's Christ who forgives sins. It's Christ who baptizes."
"Wood... said she saw "absolutely no implications" for the Vatican's clarification on current ecumenical dialogues."
"Dirk Lange, assistant general secretary for ecumenical relations at the Lutheran World Federation in Geneva, said the Vatican clarification is "totally in keeping with the tradition observed in many churches."
"...The Rev. Margaret Rose, the ecumenical and interreligious deputy to the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, said simply that "the first-person singular is the right formula."
"Jesuit Fr. Bruce Morrill, a theologian at Vanderbilt University's divinity school, concurred."
"The concern on the part of the [Vatican] in these cases isn't to be putting up walls against the other Christian churches, or Christian unity," said Morrill. "The whole thing is an internal disciplinary issue in the Roman church, not intended to have any repercussions ecumenically."
"...Like several of the other theologians, Morrill however did note that Eastern rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox use a different baptismal formula entirely. Instead of the minister declaring the event of the sacrament with an "I" or a "We," those traditions phrase it using a past participle: "Person X is baptized."
"You can't reduce this to the current formula as the only way it's valid," he said. "The fact is the Roman church recognizes all Eastern Orthodox baptisms, for example. And they use a different opening."
"...Maxwell Johnson, a Lutheran theologian at the University of Notre Dame, pointed to the Eastern Orthodox example and the historic development of the baptismal rite through the centuries to argue that the Vatican's ruling should not be used retroactively."
"Johnson said there is evidence that some baptisms in the early Roman and Milanese churches did not use a formula at all."
"To apply the recent [Vatican] ruling retroactively could mean that no one was validly baptized for several centuries in the Milanese and Roman Rites, including St Augustine," he said"
"As to whether people looking at the new Vatican instruction should worry about the validity of their own baptisms, Wood suggested that Catholics "should not be overly nervous about this."
"I think we shouldn't be unduly anxious or unduly doubtful about the sacraments we've received," she said. "I don't think people should be overly anxious, and they should trust in the grace of God and the church."
My take-away thoughts from the article? As Fr. Bruce Morrill said, it is "...an internal disciplinary issue in the Roman church, not intended to have any repercussions ecumenically." And in fact, many major Protestant denominations agree on the baptismal formula using "I" as being the proper one.
And it is interesting that the Eastern traditions use the past participle, "Person X is baptized," Maybe Jack would know more about that, I have never been to an Eastern rite or Orthodox Baptism.
Beyond the initial controversy, I have not heard any angst over people's sacraments having to be done over. So maybe it will play out as the article suggests, a clarification of an internal disciplinary issue, which will not end up with people's lives being turned upside down.
I have been to three Orthodox baptisms, first communion and confirmations- they are all done at the same time. Infants. The baptism part was pretty much full immersion. The baby’s clothing was removed completely and the poor child dunked into the deep baptismal font three times. RC babies have it easy- a few drops of water sprinkled on the forehead. I confess I did not pay attention to the wording.,I have also been to two Orthodox funeral liturgies and two Orthodex marriage liturgies. What I remember about the marriages is that a lot of things were done three times (Trinity). I have been to a couple of Lenten services also.
ReplyDeleteJack is the expert. I was merely a guest observer at all of these. Katherine, you should try to go to at least a regular Sunday liturgy. They are very different from RC liturgies and the art is also.
I would if I could. There are a couple of congregations in Omaha. My late brother in law's relatives were Syrian Orthodox.
DeleteInterestingly, there is a Greek Orthodox church in the small town of Bayard, in the Nebraska panhandle. It is said to be the only Orthodox church between Denver and Lincoln. It's been there for probably a hundred years, maybe the original people came there as railroad workers.
DeleteI was baptized hundreds of times. My childhood Catholic girlfriends used to practice baptism in extremis on me. I would pretend to be dying in the front yard. They would tenderly take my hand and ask if I wanted SINCERELY to be a baptized Christian. I would nod weakly and groan, and they would make the sign of the cross on my forehead with spit. Then I would die.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, I was much more interested in thinking up interesting ways to die in need of emergency baptism (often this involved getting hit by a truck, thrown from a car, or being thrown out of an airplane) than in paying attention to the actual words they needed.
That's funny, Jean. I've heard of Baptism by desire, and of blood, but you survived baptism by spit!
DeleteJim has a better bit of Latin that comes out "the Church provides" or something. I am from the old ex opera operanto days, which meant the sacraments were worked by God rather than the minister.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the Church insists absolutely on "I" except in cases when it doesn't. Keeps canon lawyers and theologians busy.
I think it's Ecclesia supplet, usually rendered in English as "the church supplies", meaning the church has the grace to correct for defects made by individual ministers or authorities. I raised that point over on Pray Tell and was informed by people who know what they're talking about that the principle doesn't apply to questions of errors in sacramental formulae.
DeleteInteresting. Our old priest made a mistake with the consecration one time, but assured everyone "it still counts!" Possibly not. As priests age and the shortage continues, I wonder how many sacraments are not valid because an elderly priest messes up the language.
DeleteI am sure you know that some priests in the Middle Ages were poorly trained and couldn't pronounce the Latin - some were barely literate.
DeleteMistakes are a different thing (I hope).
The idea of this miscreant deacon in Detroit is he didn't have the correct intention. I think the church puts a lot of stock in lex orandi lex credendi - prayer and belief are closely intertwined.
Thanks for clarifying. Some of this seems to get quite legalistic. While I understand the larger issue, which is protecting Church teaching through the sacrament from freelancers, I'm not sure I believe that, in the Eternal Scheme, God necessarily withheld the effects of the sacraments from those who received them from Fr. Hood with sincere hearts and with the correct understanding of them.
DeleteOne may hope, as the Church allows us to hope that those who have died without benefit of the sacraments may not necessarily end up in hell.
As you know, I think about this a lot and take it quite seriously, having miscarried two infants and having parents who died yearning for some kind of greater connection with the Infinite but who had too much baggage to be able to articulate this in any kind of way that the Church would find acceptable and outside my poor powers of "accompaniment."
This is a tempest in a tea pot. When the question came up, I suspect the Roman decision makers decided to make an example to every one of the dangers in altering the ritual formulas. They could have easily said that the minister obviously intended to do what Christ did and what ministers and all congregations intend, and what the Orthodox intend to do with their very different formula.
ReplyDeleteAt Vatican II it was decided that the Orthodox have true ministers and sacraments, and that in cases of pastoral need Catholics should approach Orthodox ministers and that Catholic ministers should receive Orthodox who approach us for the sacraments. The Orthodox said “not so quickly” and so in general do not encourage their people to approach us in need nor easily receive Roman Rite people. However in the Middle East our Eastern Rite people sometimes do approach the Orthodox and they receive us.
The question arose, however, about the validity of the Eucharistic Prayer used by one ritual tradition that does not have the words of consecration in the form of an institutional narrative. How could these be valid Eucharists since the institutional narrative is considered the essential form of the sacrament.
The recently deceased famed Oriental Liturgist Father Robert Taft S.J. gave the opinion that the words of institution where implied even though not explicitly said. Benedict 16 agreed. Many people were surprised, some pleasantly and others not.
Vatican II said that no one, not even a priest, should change the liturgy. They obviously intended to put down much experimentation before and after Vatican II. The present decision is merely an echo of that principle.
However the really in Church history is that local pastors have always adapted the liturgy in keeping with both tradition and the needs of the people. The worship aids in my local Orthodox parish have the pastor as their author with the approval of the Orthodox Bishop of the Midwest. Orthodox Churches have the option of using either “you” and “thee/thou” in their translations. Now rarely do their pastors or bishops make any radical changes, just some tinkering here and there to shorten or lengthen the service. Ever since the invention of printing and increasing centralization of authority in Rome the Roman Rite has had advocates of "say the black and do the red."
Jack, Thanks for reminding us of the liturgy of Addai and Mari, which I hadn't thought of but which does put this particular tempest back in its teapot, doesn't it?
DeleteI do remember the period when some though it would be cool to consecrate jelly donuts, but surely one can prevent that without showing more superstition than confidence in the Holy Spirit.
Taft in his courses during the summer at ND liked to remind us that liturgy is ritual, you do the same thing again and again. Therefore people have the right not to be surprised or confused.
DeleteHe reminded the innovators in the class that the history of the liturgy has much to teach us and that those who innovate without understanding history are likely to make mistakes.
On the other hand Taft was reluctant to say that he as an historian had the answers to all contemporary problems. He told us that it was our job to read widely and deeply about the history of the liturgy and to make up our minds what it meant for our contemporary pastoral situations. His job was to tell us what he thought it meant.