The Latin Rite liturgies are to be marked by sobriety, noble simplicity and reverence, carried out in dignity and without flamboyancy.
All three of these people are validly baptized in the Catholic Sacrament, but which one is truer to our Latin Rite's sobriety and noble simplicity? I ask; you answer:
23 comments:
Is that submerged guy in the 3rd picture wearing a wet suit??
No brainer, number 1. The second and third pictures could have been taken at a Baptist Church
"And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38
The water poured on us at baptism, the proper words being said, brings with it the water of God's grace from the font of His Divine love and mercy.
Without water there is no life; without the sanctifying water, there is no Divine life in us.
Blessed and sanctified according to God's design, by form and matter are we blessed and sanctified.
Holy and pleasing it is that by His grace, we are made holy and pleasing to the Lord our God.
I Thought baptize meant "to immerse"?
For all the talk of immersion being a "Baptist practice", it is the norm in the Eastern Orthodox Church. From Page 284 of Timothy Ware's book THE ORTHODOX CHURCH (written a generation or so ago):
"As the name of each person in the Trinity is mentioned, the priest immerses the child in the font, either plunging it entirely under the water, or at any rate pouring water over the whole of its body. If the person to be baptized is so ill that immersion would endanger his life, then it is sufficient to pour water over his forehead, but otherwise immersion must not be omitted.
"Orthodox are greatly distressed by the fact that western Christendom, abandoning the primitive practice of Baptism by immersion, is now content merely to pour a little water over the candidate's forehead. Orthodoxy regards immersion as essential (except in emergencies), for if there is no immersion, the correspondence between outward sign and inward meaning is lost...Baptism signifies a mystical burial and resurrection with Christ, and the outward sign of this is the plunging of the candidate into the font, followed by his emergence from the water."
We had for a time Baptism by immersion in our Parish. Then the priest who started it was transfered and the practice was not continued. So because of this experience I just presumed, rightly or wrongly, that immersion was a personal preference that was excercised by a priest who was comfortable with it.
I think the first, but is tradition to use a scallop shell?
Affusion, immersion and submersion were all used in the early Church. The Orthodox criticism of the Latin Church for favouring affusion is based on little more than their automatically finding western practices objectionable.
They accept infant baptism as the norm, and conflate it with Confirmation and reception of the Eucharist. Fair enough, it's their tradition. But the infant must be submerged, naked, into the cold waters of the font three times, and then have olive oil rubbed all over it by the godparents (presumably to stop the little mite perishing from hypothermia). How many Catholic parents would be happy with that?
The Orthodox insistence on immersion/submersion leads to problems concerning adult baptism, since a total immersion font is rarely available. The sight of a baptizand arriving in a bathing costume and towelling-robe and then taken outside to be doused with water from a plastic bucket is hardly edifying.
And while we're on the subject, the reformed rite of Catholic baptism, while valid, is problematic and doesn't bear comparison with the older rite. I won't give chapter and verse, since it is easy for anyone to compare the two.
Of course, the Eastern Rite and its liturgies are not known for the "sobriety" but lavishness, extravagance and repetition and complicated. The Western Rite, even prior to the Council, was known for its sobriety and discipline.
Unfortunately, after Vatican II the Latin Rite became ashamed of its own unique cultural liturgical tradition and decided it was best to ape Protestantism in some things and the Eastern Rites in other things, like baptism, use of icons and the like. I have even seen some Latin Rite parishes use censors with bells and extravagant swings of it.
Don't get me wrong - I have great respect for the Eastern Church and am familiar with the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. I can also understand why our eastern brethren are dismayed with what passes for liturgy in the modern Catholic Church, and have in the past decamped to a neighbouring Ukrainian Catholic church when the only alternative was a vernacular Novus Ordo.
The problem with ecumenism is that it is a one-way street. The Catholic Church no longer regards Constantinople as schismatic and recognizes its bishops, orders and sacraments. The Orthodox do not reciprocate. Bishop Athanasius Schneider admitted (in an after-lunch address which I attended in 2010) that it was easier to establish good relations with the Moslems in Kazakhstan than it was with the Orthodox, who trotted out the usual anti-Roman objections.
He eventually managed to build bridges, thanks to his patience, sincerity and obvious sanctity.
Please don't use VCII to try to prove a point that's wrong.
The pre VCII Rituale gives immersion as the first (therefore prefered) choice for baptism. Affusion is the second option.
Lazy bishops and priests said this was not of use in "modern times." The other nonsense was that babies would get "colds" which is a virus, no one "catches" a cold from being cold.
So folks like some who commented here wrongly posit that the use of immersion is from VCII.
John Nolan, I don't know where you live but here in the Midwest almost all Orthodox parishes have immersion/submersion pools. Most Orthodox churches in this country and around the world do as well. No priest here in the USA uses a red plastic bucket. Some places have a central church with a baptismal pool for adults that is used by adjacent parishes.
Traditional Liturgies are messy; our forebears did not use a tiny dab of chrism in Confirmation (and then wipe it off) nor did they use an eye dropper loaded with three drops of water to baptize. Your desire for "order" is a fixation that leads to sacramental minimalism. The "say the black, do the red" school of liturgy ignores the "ars celebrandi" and leads to giving God the least amount of time, energy and devotion. The TLM can be an excuse for people who are uncomfortable with themselves to avoid others. Fine. Forget that the Church is the Body of Christ and the gathering of the holy people of God.
It's just about God and me for these folks.
Oh, by the way I offer the EO and the NO. If one can't see that the NO has it's basis in the EF (not talking music, priestly antics or other nonsense) then folks have chosen to wear blinders.
What you call disedifying points to the ignorance of seeing the TLM as perfect when in fact many priests prided themselves on a 20 minute low Mass and rarely offered a "high" Mass. Mass was offered many times in an irreverent and sloppy manner.
You want disedifying, a 20 minute Mass is disedifying.
You want sacramental minimalism?
It sounds like you have found it. Great. Many of the rest of us want to give God the best and the fullness.
God does not need lavishness, beautiful churches and smells and bells but our offering of these in reverent worship demonstrates our imperfect desire to return the lavish of goodness and extreme mercy that the good God gives to us. Sobriety and noble simplicity do not mean minimalism.
This Greek Orthodox baptism is hopefully the extreme:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0KfWdotBDQ
Well worth watching it.
'From Fr Khouri' is incorrect. The Rituale Romanum says, concerning the administration of baptism: 'Licet Baptismus conferri valide possit aut per infusionem aquae, aut per immersionem, aut per aspersionem'. It goes on to say 'ita ut trina ablutione caput baptizandi perfundatur vel immergatur in modum crucis ...'
Turning to the rubrics for baptism itself, the first formula given has 'fundit'. The rubrics for immersion follow, 'ubi autem est consuetudo baptizandi per immersionem'. The rite for adult baptism does not mention immersion, let alone submersion.
It is clear from the above that:
1. Pouring is the norm, immersion is allowed 'where it is the custom'.
2. Immersion in the Latin Church is not the total immersion of the infant, but only its head.
Pouring (infusion) is not a 'lazy' option, since the rubrics indicate that the water may not run off the infant's head back into the font; it must go, directly or indirectly, into the sacrarium.
Since yet another priest has chosen to challenge me and indeed impute to me opinions which I do not hold, I would ask him to reflect on the following.
1. The negative of 'edifying' is 'unedifying'.
2. I don't know anything about what pertains in the mid-West of the USA, and coldn't care less.
3. The Orthodox believe in infant baptism and chrismation.
4. Don't presume that you can quote the Rituale Romanum at me in order to make a spurious point. I have a copy in front of me (admittedly in Latin, which isn't a problem).
5. Priests who are unctuously sanctimonious are a pain in the arse.
John Nolan. You are right and I am wrong about the first option in the Rituale. Apologies. Still “baptize” means “to dip, to dunk” not to pour a little water or god forbid, to sprinkle.
John Nolan, you might be a liturgist, to use an NO term and a Latinist as well.
But Merriam Webster and other linguistic sources give a definition for “disedify”
disedify, transitive verb
dis·edify | \ dÉ™s, (ˈ)dis+ \
Definition of disedify
: to injure the piety or morals of : shock the higher sensibilities or religious feelings of —used chiefly as a participle
Fr. Khouri, sanctimonious priest
Fr Khouri SP
I am neither a liturgist nor a Latinist. But the classical definition of a Greek verb does not govern its meaning when used in a Christian context. In classical Latin 'sacramentum' is the oath taken by soldiers on enlistment.
As early as the first century affusion was accepted as valid, although the preference was for immersion in living (i.e. flowing) water, which suggests it should be performed outdoors. This would not have beeen practical when baptism was carried out in the church, as it was from the early Middle Ages onwards.
With modern technology it is possible to construct a total immersion pool with running water indoors, but if we are to take archaeologism to that extreme, why not go the whole hog and baptize adults naked? It's more symbolic than having Miss Neophyte emerge from the pool in a bikini or looking like a candidate for Miss Wet T-Shirt 2020.
Fr. Allan,
I rarely disagree with you however, I don't care for the following:
"Of course, the Eastern Rite and its liturgies are not known for the "sobriety" but lavishness, extravagance and repetition and complicated. The Western Rite, even prior to the Council, was known for its sobriety and discipline."
Our tradition in the east is our tradition (many CHURCHES make up east). It evolved over centuries. We put all that we have into the liturgy and in return, all that we need comes from the liturgy. Repetition, in part, addressed heresies. By no means are our traditions and worship frivolous and undisciplined. Quite the contrary, actually. Our liturgy is part of life, like breathing air. It is so within us, respected and cared for that perceived complication ceases. Incidentally, we do not worship the liturgy, we worship Christ (I'm not suggesting that you don't do the same). Last, as a practitioner and steward of the Traditional Mass of the Roman Church, I would think that this, conceptually, would be familiar. On the whole, I've found that this conceptually, is mostly lacking in the NO Church.
lavishness - excessive spending. high life, highlife, prodigality, extravagance. waste, wastefulness, dissipation - useless or profitless activity; using or expending or consuming thoughtlessly or carelessly; "if the effort brings no compensating gain it is a waste"; "mindless dissipation of natural resources"
Definition of extravagance
1a: an instance of excess or prodigality
specifically : an excessive outlay of money
b: something extravagant
a new car is an extravagance we can't afford
2: the quality or fact of being extravagant
the extravagance of the decorations
John I'm blushing now....😳
Now there's a visual for you...🙈
ByzRC
When Prince Wolodymyr the Great of Kievan Rus adopted Christianity in 988 he sent envoys to different parts of Christendom to report on how the liturgy was conducted. They visited Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and found it so beautiful 'that they knew not whether they were in heaven or on earth'. That clinched it.
The first time I attended Ukrainian Divine Liturgy I was moved to tears. I don't speak any Slavonic languages, either. And I was used to the solemn Latin liturgy of the western Church, with its glorious musical heritage. In both there is nothing extraneous, nothing over-elaborate, nothing that smacks of 'useless repetition' (a particular conceit of those who wrecked the Roman Rite in the 1960s). Even Fr McDonald cannot quite rid himself of the puritanical notions with which he was formed.
John Nolan,
Agreed. At the expense of souls, 50+ years has been invested trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If half as much effort was put into learning the scriptures instead of agonizing over VII - what it should have been vs. what it turned out to be - the Church would be in a much different place. While we all get to the same valid end, that being the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, the way we get there is significantly different. Each week, you and I experience the Church's open treasure chest; and along the way, we smell roses far more fragrant than those "gathered in" their closed and somewhat iconoclastic circle.
I truly feel sorry for those who search the internet and travel about in search of tradition upon which to lean through life's trials and tribulations. They breathlessly comment on blogs, "Father wore lace", "Father uses the veil", "Father uses incense", "Father uses the so-called Benedict arrangement", "Father vests in Roman-style chasubles" and on and on. Then, when Father is transferred and his replacement is either doing his own thing or, is an iconoclast, the search is on for another parish in which to fulfill one's Sunday obligation in a manner which is tolerable to that individual. Such an unnecessary waste of time.
I'm home where I need to be, and I wish for the many that agonize over matters such as these the peace that I've enjoyed and that you likely enjoy as well.
Post a Comment