Guardian of the Sacraments

[3DOP]

The tradition of the Catholic Church with regards to the baptism of children, is that it cannot be allowed if prudential foresight makes it appear doubtful that the child will be taught to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church at home. The Church is not permitted to just baptize and ordain and marry anybody and everybody who appears to be willing. The reason for this is that Christ made the Church the guardian of His Sacraments. There is a word in sacramental theology which you have probably heard, sacrilege. It is the obligation of the Church to help prevent people from sacrilege, that is, ignorantly partaking of sacraments for which they are unprepared. That is why the priesthood has always required a rigorous formation. Without marriage preparation, a baptized couple cannot be sacramentally married in the Church. A licit communion takes place only after a baptized child or adult gives satisfactory answers to whether or not there is some minimal understanding of Who is present in the Blessed Sacrament. Surely anyone can see the reasonableness of these safeguards. Is the Church guilty of punishing those who for some reason or other have an impediment to the reception of these sacraments? Of course not. It is not a blessing to the recipient of a sacrament to receive it without meeting these reasonable requirements.

As stated above, baptism of children requires a similar scrutiny involving the faith of those who are the guardians of the children. It is not to punish children whose parents could not impart to them the Catholic faith, that the Church consents to baptise other children. It might be of interest to note that many Catholics don't even understand that the baptism of children and especially infants, was probably not the norm in the Apostolic Age. One commentator expresses it like this: "If the Church consents to receive an infant into the Christian family, it is because she considers that the Christian faith of those who present him to her and of the society in which they live will assure to him an education conformable to the supernatural life which is about to be given him. Thus the baptism of infants could not become a general custom until the reign of Jesus Christ was firmly established on earth." Note how the Church is less free to dispense baptism in societies that would be opposed to Catholic teaching. The Church has had to consider the entire context of the child's situation. 

As you might know, the Catholic Church holds that there are seven Sacraments. The same commentator who I cited above explains why the Church must, for the benefit of a potential recipient, sometimes delay the dispensing of a Sacrament to children or adults: "Our Lord has entrusted these seven fountains to the care of the ministers of His Church, and they must not be opened except when there is good reason to hope that the sacramental grace will be well used. Baptism especially, which raises man out of his own nothingness to a supernatural nobility, must be safeguarded in its administration with a prudence and watchfulness corresponding to the sublime and ineffaceable character which it confers." This merely means that under many circumstances, souls must be entrusted to the goodness and mercy of God until such time that they can of their own volition demonstrate an ability to be safely baptised. Our faith is in the goodness of God Who is above the Sacraments.

The same author will conclude my plea for trying to understand why the Catholic Church, and presumably the LDS, might seem selective in who they will baptize. It seems like only those with less than proper regard for what happens at baptism, and ignorance of the grave duties incumbent on the recipients of any sacrament, would presume that the guardian of the sacraments ever demonstrates a spiteful or uncaring attitude if she sometimes withholds the privilege. Only in heaven will it be more easily seen what a travesty it is for someone to receive a sacrament without being ready for it, sacrilegiously. My author makes an attempt. "A baptised Christian who, through his own or others' fault, is ignorant of his rights and duties, is like a descendant of a noble race, who, knowing nothing of his family traditions...drags out an aimless existence in a station of life below that to which by birth he is entitled." It is not to punish a child that the Church has been obliged to try to avoid this waste, and wait for God's timing, and the child's, before baptism can occur.

-----------

Citations are taken from The Liturgical Year, by Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 5, pp. 412, 413, from the entry for the Feast of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. (St. Cyril was one of the first of the church fathers to compose "catechetical instructions" to be used for introduction and screening of the candidates to the Sacrament of baptism, which traditionally happens on the Easter Vigil. St. Cyril's feast day is convenient in consideration of those who are even now awaiting baptism, March 18, always shortly before Easter)                 

Edited April 6, 2019 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Thank you, Rory.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The tradition of the Catholic Church with regards to the baptism of children, is that it cannot be allowed if prudential foresight makes it appear doubtful that the child will be taught to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church at home. The Church is not permitted to just baptize and ordain and marry anybody and everybody who appears to be willing. The reason for this is that Christ made the Church the guardian of His Sacraments. There is a word in sacramental theology which you have probably heard, sacrilege. ...............................

As stated above, baptism of children requires a similar scrutiny involving the faith of those who are the guardians of the children. .............................

............ This merely means that under many circumstances, souls must be entrusted to the goodness and mercy of God until such time that they can of their own volition demonstrate an ability to be safely baptised. .....................

............................. It is not to punish a child that the Church has been obliged to try to avoid this waste, and wait for God's timing, and the child's, before baptism can occur.

..........................

How does your Church view baptism of children whose parents are not Catholic, or who are in a same-sex marriage?  Would partners in a same-sex marriage be eligible to partake of the Eucharist?

As you know, the LDS Church is apparently going to allow baptism of the children of same-sex couples.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How does your Church view baptism of children whose parents are not Catholic, or who are in a same-sex marriage?  Would partners in a same-sex marriage be eligible to partake of the Eucharist?

Here's from a US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement:

Quote

Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents

A lot would be left up to the discretion of local bishops and priests. More traditional parishes don't allow it, more liberals ones do.

Same sex partners would not be eligible to receive Communion because they would be in a state of grave mortal sin.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How does your Church view baptism of children whose parents are not Catholic, or who are in a same-sex marriage?  Would partners in a same-sex marriage be eligible to partake of the Eucharist?

As you know, the LDS Church is apparently going to allow baptism of the children of same-sex couples.

They allowed it before as an exception ( which I know you know, but offering clarification for those who didn't at all or didn't understand the implications clearly).  That is significantly different even if the process only added the additional step of approval from the First Presidency (and if I understand and remember people's remarks, there are confirmed for me and unconfirmed exceptions made) because a bishop likely was more hesitant when something is an exception rather than something that needs to be taken as very serious and examined closely by participants and even more important, many would either ignore the exception language and see it as completely forbidden or at the very least highly discouraged, so less likely to even talk to leaders about the possibility of appealing for an exception.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

baptism of children requires a similar scrutiny involving the faith of those who are the guardians of the children

 

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Baptism especially, which raises man out of his own nothingness to a supernatural nobility, must be safeguarded in its administration with a prudence and watchfulness corresponding to the sublime and ineffaceable character which it confers."

How does this figure in with infants that are born and not expected to live and so a person baptises them before they die without knowing anything about the family.
I am probably not understanding this correctly.

[3DOP]

47 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 

How does this figure in with infants that are born and not expected to live and so a person baptises them before they die without knowing anything about the family.
I am probably not understanding this correctly.

In that event, there would be no concern that the Sacrament might be "wasted" to use my expression from above. The child would never be educated at home or school in such a way that the faith would be likely to be compromised. It is certain that the Roman Ritual advises that midwives learn the essentials of the baptismal ritual. It seems like in case of doubt regarding the family, the presumption would be in favor of the child receiving baptism. But I am not sure if it is licit (permissible) in the instance where it is known that the family would object. I would have to check on that. I tend to think one could probably baptize contrary to parental wishes when death is imminent.

Your quote of what I had said references "safeguarding", "prudence", and "watchfulness". When death is imminent, such foresight would seem to be unnecessary. There will be no opportunity for abuse of the graces of the Sacrament.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here's from a US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement:

A lot would be left up to the discretion of local bishops and priests. More traditional parishes don't allow it, more liberals ones do.

Same sex partners would not be eligible to receive Communion because they would be in a state of grave mortal sin.

I'd be very curious about that, my experience is that churches in Europe tend to be more liberal.  Love the music and liturgy of the church but as a heretical Mason, yeah that kept me out.  I have a cousin who's up there masonically and has Catholic inlaws, it's almost non stop fighting. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

In that event, there would be no concern that the Sacrament might be "wasted" to use my expression from above. The child would never be educated at home or school in such a way that the faith would be likely to be compromised. It is certain that the Roman Ritual advises that midwives learn the essentials of the baptismal ritual. It seems like in case of doubt regarding the family, the presumption would be in favor of the child receiving baptism. But I am not sure if it is licit (permissible) in the instance where it is known that the family would object. I would have to check on that. I tend to think one could probably baptize contrary to parental wishes when death is imminent.

Your quote of what I had said references "safeguarding", "prudence", and "watchfulness". When death is imminent, such foresight would seem to be unnecessary. There will be no opportunity for abuse of the graces of the Sacrament.

So, Rory, I take it that a woman can perform baptism and last rites (unction) in extremis?

[flameburns623]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, Rory, I take it that a woman can perform baptism and last rites (unction) in extremis?

In the RCC, any baptised person can perform baptism. Rites for the dead are reserved to the Catholic priesthood.  

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

In the RCC, any baptised person can perform baptism. Rites for the dead are reserved to the Catholic priesthood.  

To clarify, to baptize one need not even be Catholic to baptize due to the belief that without baptism, they baby may not enter heaven so priesthood authority is not necessary

The doctrine of Limbo has been changed I undertsand though.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

In the RCC, any baptised person can perform baptism. Rites for the dead are reserved to the Catholic priesthood.  

Wasn't extreme unction also possible for a non-ordained person to perform at one time?

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How does your Church view baptism of children whose parents are not Catholic, or who are in a same-sex marriage?  Would partners in a same-sex marriage be eligible to partake of the Eucharist?

As you know, the LDS Church is apparently going to allow baptism of the children of same-sex couples.

Hi Robert. I missed this yesterday.

When I answer your question about the "views of my Church", I will answer according to how the Church has understood matters in the past, for century after century. 

In the baptismal ritual, the parents and godparents affirm the Apostles Creed. Non-Catholics could not affirm the Creed, at least not with the same understanding as the Catholic Church. 

The Catholic Church holds that marriage between persons of the same sex is impossible. How could persons who disagree so radically with the Church about the sacrament of matrimony, really want their child to be associated with such an organization? Holy communion implies a oneness of community that can only exist between members who are committed to the same beliefs. However, there is no sergeant at arms at the communion rail stopping anybody from receiving sacrilegiously. It is common at funerals where many non-Catholics are in attendance to explain that the Eucharist is for Catholics only who are well-disposed, which means they have not committed any mortal sins that are unconfessed. When heterosexual Catholics divorce and remarry, unless the first spouse dies, they are traditionally excluded from holy communion also, unless they agree to live together as brother and sister, the reason being that marital relations between unmarried persons is adulterous. It is sacrilegious to receive holy communion in a state of mortal sin. What these souls need is not the Eucharist. It cannot help them. They need "second baptism", the sacrament of confession. The church can not recognize these marriages as sacramental either.

When I first became a baptist minister, I had a cousin who wanted me to baptize their child. I love this cousin, but that doesn't allow me to baptize her child. I think there are a lot of people for whom religion plays a slight part in their lives, and they regret it some. They don't want to deprive their children of a ceremonial that seems harmless at worst, and maybe good. So they want their children baptized without really appreciating the meaning or the duties involved for parents, godparents, and eventually the child. That might explain why some parents want their children baptized in to churches that they don't agree with in questions of first importance.

The Church does allow the children of mixed marriages, where one of the parties is Catholic, to be baptized, but only upon the understanding that the parents are obliged to see that the child will be taught the Catholic faith. 

Take care,

Rory

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wasn't extreme unction also possible for a non-ordained person to perform at one time?

I think not Robert. I just checked the Catholic Encyclopedia and it takes the position that it has always been for priests alone, while noting several opinions to the contrary, which never took root, over the centuries. The primary scriptural basis for extreme unction is James 5:14. I did not remember my Catholic translation which uses the word "priests". Much of my memory is and probably always will be from the KJV. 

"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

This has been understood in the context of James' letter being distributed widely, that any of the "priests of the church", is qualified. It does not mean that two or more are required. When possible, loved ones, and the faithful are invited to assist at the ritual with proper responsorial prayers.

[3DOP]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To clarify, to baptize one need not even be Catholic to baptize due to the belief that without baptism, they baby may not enter heaven so priesthood authority is not necessary

The doctrine of Limbo has been changed I undertsand though.

Hi Mark.

Correct about the minister of baptism.

There is some confusion about Limbo. As I understand it, the Church has not spoken with finality on the subject. I am privately convinced that the souls of unbaptized babies do not burn in hell, nor can they enjoy the beatific vision. Has the Church taught that all dead unbaptized babies certainly go to heaven? I don't think so. Has the Church taught that all dead unbaptized babies are certainly burning in hell? I don't think so. There is a lot of room in between for a place which is as much as anyone without supernatural aspirations could desire, with immortality and "natural bliss" (expression of St. Thos. Aquinas). That used to be called Limbo.

I have heard Christians saying how bored they would be if heaven was about praying and meditating on God too much. We all have natural attachments for country music or golf, or whatever, but we are told "that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard what God hath prepared". It'll be okay if they have to leave their Conway Twitty records behind. But...if it wasn't too late, maybe they should beg to get into Limbo! I have argued at other times that "the heaven" envisioned by some religions and some Christians seems no better than Limbo. So anyway, I do not understand myself to be obliged to give up my belief in the Limbo of the Children.

A very good day to you. Take care.

Rory 

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, Rory, I take it that a woman can perform baptism and last rites (unction) in extremis?

Baptism yes. Last Rites, no.

[3DOP]

But to return to the main reason for the thread, are we all convinced that the motives for withholding sacraments are not related to malice on the part of those with the duty of consenting to baptize, ordain, marry, distribute communion, etc.? If so, great. That is what I wished to demonstrate. 

I don't think there is any way that these policies that restrict the privilege of receiving the sacraments are or were motivated by hate on the parts of either of our religious communities. The fact is that in both of our churches, there is so much concern and compassion for people in some of these situations, that there appears to be a strong desire in our hierarchies to figure out ways to bypass their duty as "guardian of the sacraments". I should pray more for my bishops that they will never succumb, for false and sentimental reasons, to allow sacraments for those who perhaps through no fault of their own, are not properly disposed to receive them. A good guardian of the sacraments will always understand that by keeping to his duty to God and the sacraments, he is also doing his duty to souls who are better disposed to actual graces from God, if they do not try to receive sacramental graces for which they are unprepared.

Rory

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

......................................

The Church does allow the children of mixed marriages, where one of the parties is Catholic, to be baptized, but only upon the understanding that the parents are obliged to see that the child will be taught the Catholic faith. 

Take care,

Rory

 

Thanks, Rory.  You always come through in a pinch.

[RevTestament]

On 4/6/2019 at 11:41 AM, 3DOP said:

The tradition of the Catholic Church with regards to the baptism of children, is that it cannot be allowed if prudential foresight makes it appear doubtful that the child will be taught to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church at home. The Church is not permitted to just baptize and ordain and marry anybody and everybody who appears to be willing. The reason for this is that Christ made the Church the guardian of His Sacraments. There is a word in sacramental theology which you have probably heard, sacrilege. It is the obligation of the Church to help prevent people from sacrilege, that is, ignorantly partaking of sacraments for which they are unprepared. That is why the priesthood has always required a rigorous formation. Without marriage preparation, a baptized couple cannot be sacramentally married in the Church. A licit communion takes place only after a baptized child or adult gives satisfactory answers to whether or not there is some minimal understanding of Who is present in the Blessed Sacrament. Surely anyone can see the reasonableness of these safeguards. Is the Church guilty of punishing those who for some reason or other have an impediment to the reception of these sacraments? Of course not. It is not a blessing to the recipient of a sacrament to receive it without meeting these reasonable requirements.

Yes, the sacraments or ordinances are to be taken seriously. 

3 Nephi 18:29

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

On 4/6/2019 at 11:41 AM, 3DOP said:

As stated above, baptism of children requires a similar scrutiny involving the faith of those who are the guardians of the children. It is not to punish children whose parents could not impart to them the Catholic faith, that the Church consents to baptise other children. It might be of interest to note that many Catholics don't even understand that the baptism of children and especially infants, was probably not the norm in the Apostolic Age. One commentator expresses it like this: "If the Church consents to receive an infant into the Christian family, it is because she considers that the Christian faith of those who present him to her and of the society in which they live will assure to him an education conformable to the supernatural life which is about to be given him. Thus the baptism of infants could not become a general custom until the reign of Jesus Christ was firmly established on earth." Note how the Church is less free to dispense baptism in societies that would be opposed to Catholic teaching. The Church has had to consider the entire context of the child's situation. 

For the above reasons the Lord has told His Latter Day Church that children should not be baptized until they know the right from the wrong. The Church does not believe sin can be washed away - it must be repented of. There is certainly good historical evidence that in the apostolic age, as you say, children were not baptized. That seems to have come about after the doctrine of original sin gained precedence. 

On 4/6/2019 at 11:41 AM, 3DOP said:

As you might know, the Catholic Church holds that there are seven Sacraments. The same commentator who I cited above explains why the Church must, for the benefit of a potential recipient, sometimes delay the dispensing of a Sacrament to children or adults: "Our Lord has entrusted these seven fountains to the care of the ministers of His Church, and they must not be opened except when there is good reason to hope that the sacramental grace will be well used. Baptism especially, which raises man out of his own nothingness to a supernatural nobility, must be safeguarded in its administration with a prudence and watchfulness corresponding to the sublime and ineffaceable character which it confers." This merely means that under many circumstances, souls must be entrusted to the goodness and mercy of God until such time that they can of their own volition demonstrate an ability to be safely baptised. Our faith is in the goodness of God Who is above the Sacraments.

The same author will conclude my plea for trying to understand why the Catholic Church, and presumably the LDS, might seem selective in who they will baptize. It seems like only those with less than proper regard for what happens at baptism, and ignorance of the grave duties incumbent on the recipients of any sacrament, would presume that the guardian of the sacraments ever demonstrates a spiteful or uncaring attitude if she sometimes withholds the privilege. Only in heaven will it be more easily seen what a travesty it is for someone to receive a sacrament without being ready for it, sacrilegiously. My author makes an attempt. "A baptised Christian who, through his own or others' fault, is ignorant of his rights and duties, is like a descendant of a noble race, who, knowing nothing of his family traditions...drags out an aimless existence in a station of life below that to which by birth he is entitled." It is not to punish a child that the Church has been obliged to try to avoid this waste, and wait for God's timing, and the child's, before baptism can occur.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Rory. I would say that the RCC and the Latter Day Church both take sacraments/ordinances seriously as they were originally intended - as a part of covenants rather than the popularized TV evangelical form of Christianity so often seen today. I am not saying that the Lord does not work in the evangelical Churches, but they do have a different attitude and outlook about things.