www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Baptism - East and West

This is the question posed in a discussion and I need your help.

Quote:
"In the Latin Church, in a case of necessity, anybody - even someone not baptized can validly administer the sacrament of baptism (Latin Can. 861 �2). In the Eastern Churches, only a baptised person may do so - otherwise, it is invalid (Eastern Can. 677 - �2).

How does this make any sense at all? If someone is baptized by a non-baptized person and then converts to Latin-rite Catholicism, he would not be rebaptized and would be brought immediately to the other sacraments. But in the Eastern Rite, loyal to the same Pope, that person would be "RE"baptized?

Anyone who can please clarify this for me. I don't know why, but this seeming inconsistency bothers me a lot."

I gave this for an answer and it is insufficient I know for the question. Althogh technically it is all there. The other person sees this as an inconsistancy between East and West. And doesn't understand the necessity for it to be someone of faith even in special circumstances.

Any thoughts?

46. The minister of Baptism

Differing from the Latin tradition reiterated in can. 861 � 1 of the Code of Canon Law, the ordinary administration of Baptism in all Eastern traditions, as referred to in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches can. 677 � 1, is reserved to those who are clothed in priestly grace, that is, to bishops and presbyters, excluding deacons, on whom hands have been imposed "not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry."[47]

In case of necessity rather, according to can. 677 � 2, baptism can also be licitly administered by the deacon, another cleric, members of institutes of consecrated life, and also "any other Christian faithful," but not just "any person with the right intention" as is indicated for the Latin Church in can. 861 � 2 of the Code of Canon Law. Such differentiation underlines that Baptism saves the individual introducing him or her into an ecclesiastical community. Therefore, only a member of the community can baptize.

The insertion into the ecclesiastical community also appears in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches when it affirms that "its administration is the competence (...) of the proper pastor of the person to be baptized, or another priest with the permission of the same pastor or the local hierarch" (can. 677 � 1) and that "in the territory of another it is not licit for anyone to administer baptism without the required permission" (can. 678 � 1).

47. Baptism is to be received in one's own rite

With the exception of special circumstances, which would have to be authorized by the competent authorities, the practice of requesting Baptism in a rite other than one's own for motives such as esthetics, friendship with the minister, etc. is absolutely discouraged. Except for the case of lacking a minister of one's own rite, the celebration of Baptism should also visibly signify the entrance in one's own Church <sui iuris>. For this reason, can. 683 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states that "Baptism must be celebrated according (to) the liturgical prescriptions of the Church <sui iuris> in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled."

You can read this at EWTN they have been wonderful enough to publish it on their website, about the only place you will find the canons on the web.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/EASTINST.HTM#07

APPLYING THE LITURGICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES Congregation for the Eastern Churches

Rose,

Both are Seperate Churchs with seperate Canons. What utites the Churches is a deep, mutal understanding of the Coummunality of the Sacrements.

Even the case you outlined might require a 're-baptism' in the Latin Church.

The Baptism of a person by an Unbaptized is a matter of very serious investigation on the part of the Church to insure that the Baptism was valid.

If not, the Recipitent is Baptized 'Conditionally'

So if there is ANY DOUBT, the recipient is re-baptized, with a trust in the Holy Spirit to set to right anything that was lacking.

If this recipient would 'transfer' to Byzantine Catholicsm, the Byzantines offer the honor of assuming the Latins conducted a full investigation and determined that was no doubt as to the validity of the Baptism.

The Eastern Churchs, (generally lacking the legalist mindset of the Romans ) are more apt to perform a conditional Baptism initially.

In the Roman Case, there is Trust in the Holy Spirit to act where the faithful humbily request Baptism.

In the Eastern Case, there is Trust in the Holy Spirit to set to right anything that was lacking in possibly imperfect Baptism.

In each case, there is FULL Trust in the Spirit.

As with many things, the theology is the same, the empasis is different.

Yes. I have sometimes been accused of doing some thinking.

On occasion, when I cannot figure something out (of God's ways) and it bothers me - I have the good luck to remind myself - that it is apparently none of my business and he takes care of it without my guidance or understanding.

I don�t mean to be �snippy� at all.

I find my head is too full of chatter anyway.

(Disclaimer: Your own experience may vary.

No doubt someone here will eventuall give you a real clue.

Dear Rose,

I guess I didn't see your original point, but do now.

When you say that someone is baptized by an un-baptized person - well, that would ONLY occur or be allowed within Latin Rite Catholicism.

I've never heard of any Protestant denomination accepting the "validity of baptism" at the hands of an agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc.

Now that we have that cleared up . . .

If a baptism is recognized as valid under the terms of the Latin Church, it would be so recognized in the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches - no questions asked.

But the situation where someone who is unbaptized would be called upon to perform a baptism "according to the mind of the (Latin) Church" - that's not something that happens every day.

So this is something that is really on the periphery of "cases when."

Alex

Dear to Christ Alex,

I sent off an email to my sister, a law student at Catholic University of America. They have a Canon Law Studies Dept there.

I asked her to find out, under what circumstance and unbaptized person could legitimately perform a baptism. One that would not be 'conditionally baptized' again.

The response was that this is very rare. She found one example in brief search.

1952 Italy. A baby was born to a Catholic mother and a Jewish Father. The Father was in the process of converting ( a catechumen), but not yet Baptized.

The baby was born very still,but alive the Mother requested Baptism for her child, but being weak from childbirth, could not herself. The Father baptized using the correct formula.

This was ruled to be a valid Baptism, as the Father was fully aware of God (being of Jewish decent) and was fully informed of the effects of Baptism. Most importantly, the Father, full knowing what Baptism is and what effect Baptism has upon a sould, had the desire and intent to Baptize.

I infer that, in most of the cases you mentioned, a Buddhist for example, might go through the legitimate motions, but correct INTENT would be doubtful. In case of ANY DOUBT, the recipient undergoes a 'Conditional Baptism'

In almost every case, there is some doubt.

-Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Well, I'm sure my bishop would have liked to conditionally baptize me a few times . . .

I think ultimately it is better to leave emergency baptisms to those already baptized - one can get embroiled in a sea of legality that will leave one with one big headache.

When my father had a heart attack and was in the hospital, we dragged a poor Orthodox priest out of Church (it was a Lenten Saturday and there was a Liturgy going on) from across the street.

He gave dad the Anointing and returned. (He later came to dad's funeral and we all kissed his hand, to the surprise of the bishop and seven priests who were there!).

One of our canon lawyer priests, who is now a bishop, came by later and when we told him he already received the Anointing, he started pelting us with questions "Did he do this? Or that?" ostensibly to determine if the Sacrament was "validly conferred."

In fact, the East requires more than one priest - a total of three or seven, to impart the "fullness" of the Anointing of the Sick (the East has no "last rites" at all - but anoints for healing alone).

When St Thomas More was about to be beheaded, he was approached by the then Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who wanted to minister to him.

More asked him to stay where he was, thank you very much!

Personally, I would rather not have an unbaptized person baptize me.

In a moment of unforeseen and extreme necessity, there is prayer, the Baptism of Desire.

Even when a child dies without baptism, the faith and prayer of parents and of the Church, together with the great Mercy of God, does not leave such a child outside of the Eternal and Divine embrace.

Alex

Dear Alex,

His Excellency is truly a wise man

I too would trust more completely in an Emergency Baptism by those who are Baptized themselves.

But you know us Romans; what's the point of have something if you can't have volumes of Rules to go with it

-Brendan

"Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words"
-St. Francis of Assisi

Could I, being a validly baptized Christian, technically baptize other people? Say I wanted to baptize a Jewish friend (lol- - -I would never do this, just in theory), so I'm walking down the hall and oops! Spill some of my water on her head and recite the required phrases, much to her shock and confusion. Would she technically be validly baptized?

If this is the case, shouldn't we grab all the non-Christians and foribly baptize them?

No, seriously...

Logos Teen

Could I, being a validly baptized Christian, technically baptize other people? Say I wanted to baptize a Jewish friend (lol- - -I would never do this, just in theory), so I'm walking down the hall and oops! Spill some of my water on her head and recite the required phrases, much to her shock and confusion. Would she technically be validly baptized?

I think the "Oops" in your question answers it. Do you have the right intention if it's a matter of "Oops"?

If this is the case, shouldn't we grab all the non-Christians and foribly baptize them?

You can do that, just expect martyrdom or a bloody nose at some point. :p You can't convert someone against their will. "Forcibly" baptising someone is no baptism at all, in my opinion...is forcible baptism part of the right intention demanded by the Church?

No, seriously...

Seriously, I once threatened to baptise a Jewish roomate in the bathroom sink after he said something not so nice about Christianity. He promptly stopped. True story.

Thanks so much to all of you for the help and wonderful discussion.

I think for our 'Logos Teen,' it is important to remember that the Church will is not suppose baptise now unless they are sure the child will be brought up in the faith. Ther reason being there are so many who never attend Church, but somehow superstiously believe that Baptism has to be done just in case.

Rose

Dear Teen Logo,

You can validly baptise anyone who isn't baptised, and who is in a state of emergency (i.e. on the point of possible death) and who asks you to baptise him or her.

You must pour "living" or flowing water over them as you baptise them.

You may also dunk . . .

I once read in a Greek Orthodox manual that there is such a thing as "aerobaptism" that when a child is on the point of death and water cannot be had, it is sufficient to raise the child into the air three times while pronouncing the words to baptise it . . .

Outside the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem is a plaque marking the spot where a former Muslim fell to his death from a minaret one Pascha Eve.

He apparently saw the Holy Fire dart around the Church and began to proclaim, from the minaret, that Christ is the true God etc.

So excited was he that he fell and died in front of the doors of the Church.

The Church considered him baptised in his own blood.

You should never forcibly baptise anyone - as this would be invalid and also sacrilegious.

A friend of mine in university was studying to become a Catholic and fell ill with a cripplying disease that left her paralyzed for almost two years.

I grew up with her brother who was always trying to get the two of us "hitched" .

(Beautiful girl, but not my type ).

She was much younger than me and had something of a crush on me but I regarded her as a kind of sister. She made me a birthday party that I will always fondly remember.

The parents were of mixed religious background and hadn't baptised their children yet.

When I visited the poor girl in the hospital, she was in some pain and was worried that she wouldn't last the week.

She then begged me to baptise her as she said she couldn't count on her mother to agree etc. and she didn't want the chaplain to get involved.

So I did. I poured water over her etc. And I gave her a Rosary. Thankfully, she survived the ordeal . . .

Many years later, I was the best man at her brother's wedding - she was the maid of honour.

As we sat at the Bride's Table, she took out that old Rosary I had given her many years before.

It used to be one of my favourite Rosaries and I gave it to her because it meant so much to me to keep it.

(That sounds funny, but it's just me).

She still keeps that Rosary and I know she carries a part of me with her always.

I'll be sure and pray for her today!

Alex

Quote by Alex:
**************************************************
You must pour "living" or flowing water over them as you baptise them.

You may also dunk . . .

I once read in a Greek Orthodox manual that there is such a thing as "aerobaptism" that when a child is on the point of death and water cannot be had, it is sufficient to raise the child into the air three times while pronouncing the words to baptise
*************************************************

Dear Alex,

In a movie a priest uses his saliva (his thumb to his tongue to the child's forehead) to baptize a dying child. It seems valid under the circumstance of no water being available.

Paul

The "oops" is to disguise my true purpose from the Jewish baptizee; it does not involve my intentions. What would be a wrong intention for baptism? My intention would be to bring this person into the Body of Christ. I think the way I go about it is an entirely different matter.

But, as Alex has made clear that this is apparently sacreligious and invalid anyway, I won't do it. (Of course I wasn't planning to anyway).

Logos Teen