Baptism during Lent

[jmcrae]

You say that as if I “shouldn’t” be concerned.

Since the Church wants us to have our children baptized “within the first FEW WEEKS” after birth (since Baptism carries with it “salvific grace”), then why shouldn’t we encourage it??

It’s the party afterwards that is forbidden during Lent - not Baptism itself.

If your child is in robust health, then I see no reason not to wait until Easter time, when you can splash out with a nice big party for him, call out everyone you know, and really celebrate the joy of his salvation with him.

 

[sfp]

…Is it not worth mentioning that very early in the church’s history only the bishop could baptize? And he came around every couple years to do that?

Someone please comment on this, I’ve not heard it before.

Bishops are the only ones who could “confirm” as is basically the case today, barring special circumstances. (and examples of this concept is recorded in scripture, by the way) But I have no idea how available they were, say during the first few hundred years in the catecombs…can someone comment?

 

[sfp]

It’s the party afterwards that is forbidden during Lent - not Baptism itself.

If your child is in robust health, then I see no reason not to wait until Easter time, when you can splash out with a nice big party for him, call out everyone you know, and really celebrate the joy of his salvation with him.

I see your point, in general, but you’re not considering accidental death, such as from a car accident that we can never foresee…doesn’t matter how healthy the kid is.

What’s more important, waiting to have a party, or making sure that our child’s soul get’s to heaven in the event of an accident?

 

[jmcrae]

I see your point, in general, but you’re not considering accidental death, such as from a car accident that we can never foresee…doesn’t matter how healthy the kid is.

What’s more important, waiting to have a party, or making sure that our child’s soul get’s to heaven in the event of an accident?

I’m not sure how long you’ve been Catholic, but one thing you’ll notice over time is that Baptism parties are customary - in fact one of the roles of the godmother is to organize the party and bake the cake. To suggest skipping the party, to most Catholics, would be like suggesting that we skip the Eucharist during Mass - it’s an integral part of the baptism, as far as they’re concerned.

This is why it is not customary to have weddings or baptisms during Lent - but quiet ones with no intentions of having a party or guests would be fine - though unthinkable to the majority of Catholics.

 

[sfp]

I’m not sure how long you’ve been Catholic, but one thing you’ll notice over time is that Baptism parties are customary - in fact one of the roles of the godmother is to organize the party and bake the cake. To suggest skipping the party, to most Catholics, would be like suggesting that we skip the Eucharist during Mass - it’s an integral part of the baptism, as far as they’re concerned.

This is why it is not customary to have weddings or baptisms during Lent - but quiet ones with no intentions of having a party or guests would be fine - though unthinkable to the majority of Catholics.

I completely disagree with your “typical” baptism scenario. I’ve been a Catholic all my life, I’ve been a music director for 10 years, I am an amateur Catholic apologist, and I have 5 kids, the oldest is 6…all have been baptized ‘relatively’ quickly except for our newborn. NEVER was the “party” the most significant part of the Baptism…it was knowing that our child was saved. The significance of the sacrament should ALWAYS supersede the “party.”

Of course the party is desirable, IF possible, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it…but answer my question above…when it comes down to it, what’s more important?

Our newborn will be baptized the weekend before lent so as not to offend our parish Worship director and pastor by asking to baptize her during lent. I don’t think that I should be made to feel like I need to rush into the baptism…it’s causing travel difficulties for the Godparents, and we take this role very seriously and so do the Godparents…they want to come, but this “rule” being set by our parish, which directly goes againts the recommendations from the CDW is not proper, and now I’ve found out that due to the “rush,” one of the Godparent’s wife cannot make it due to limited plane flights that weekend.

All in all, we are very happy that we are able to baptize our child before lent, but what if our healthy child was born on ash wednesday? MUST we wait against our will?? This is the question being posed.

What’s also inconsistent, is that our parish has several weddings scheduled during lent…WITH receptions following!

Tell me how this makes sense to you. (By the way, I’m not admonishing our pastor or worship director…they are WONDERFUL people, I just don’t know if things are being thought out).

 

[jmcrae]

I completely disagree with your “typical” baptism scenario. I’ve been a Catholic all my life, I’ve been a music director for 10 years, I am an amateur Catholic apologist, and I have 5 kids, the oldest is 6…all have been baptized ‘relatively’ quickly except for our newborn. NEVER was the “party” the most significant part of the Baptism…it was knowing that our child was saved. The significance of the sacrament should ALWAYS supersede the “party.”

Of course, and I’ve never met any parents who didn’t think that the baptism was the most important part, but that doesn’t mean that the party wasn’t also part of the deal, for them.

I was brought up Protestant, and for us, Baptism was not celebrated at all; it was just, splash the water, say the words, and that’s it, you’re done. There was no recognition afterwards of the fact that it had occurred, and in fact I didn’t even know my baptismal anniversary, let alone celebrate it, until after I became Catholic.

Of course the party is desirable, IF possible, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it…but answer my question above…when it comes down to it, what’s more important?

The party helps to signify that the baptism was not just a routine of motions without meaning, but that it was a really important event in the child’s life.

 

[sfp]

…The party helps to signify that the baptism was not just a routine of motions without meaning, but that it was a really important event in the child’s life.

We’re not in disagreement on this. My question has developed into the following, based on the posts…

Aren’t we misleading the parishioners (who typically don’t know any better) by creating a “rule” that says “we don’t baptize during lent,” when this directly goes against the Church’s authoritative direction.

(Again, I’m not talking about what’s “desired,” or “typical,” or “special circumstances.”) I’m just saying…shouldn’t we be more responsible in educating our faithful as to the significance of the Baptism. By denying it in general, I see this as a major contradiction and source of confusion to those who won’t typically ask any questions about it (especially when they hold weddings during Lent!). Shouldn’t they be at least made aware of the facts and the recommendations?

Here’s a suggestion…
Instead of saying, "We don’t do baptisms during Lent, let’s say “…due to the salvific grace given by the sacrament, baptisms are engouraged within the first few weeks of birth (as the Church says), but IF you choose to hold your child’s baptism during lent, then due to the nature of the lentin season it is suggested that you refrain from indulging yourselves with…(you can fill in the rest).”

This way, no one is unjustly being denied the sacrament, no one is being “pressured” into waiting OR rushing, and everyone is being catechized.

 

[Brendan]

Absolutely not…

Is it not worth mentioning that very early in the church’s history only the bishop could baptize? And he came around every couple years to do that?

Really, exactly how early in the Church’s history are you thinking? Prior to 44 AD?

One of the deacons of Act 6 ( Phillip) baptized the Samarians in Acts 8. Peter and John came later and Confirmed them.

Phillip the deacon also baptized the Ethopian eunuch.

BTW, note how Phillip in baptizing the eunuch, recognized that Baptism should be done as soon as possible.

I might disagree with a particular priest here and there, but I never disagree with the example of a Saint

 

[frommi]

Really, exactly how early in the Church’s history are you thinking? Prior to 44 AD?

One of the deacons of Act 6 ( Phillip) baptized the Samarians in Acts 8. Peter and John came later and Confirmed them.

Phillip the deacon also baptized the Ethopian eunuch.

BTW, note how Phillip in baptizing the eunuch, recognized that Baptism should be done as soon as possible.

I might disagree with a particular priest here and there, but I never disagree with the example of a Saint

In our history the bishop did the baptizing and the confirming at the same time…then as history took its course…he could be in fewer and fewer places…so the priest/deacon became an ordinary minister of baptism…but confirmation remained reserved to the bishop…

It’s all part of the history of how the order of sacraments got to be a little out of whack.

 

[jmcrae]

We’re not in disagreement on this. My question has developed into the following, based on the posts…

Aren’t we misleading the parishioners (who typically don’t know any better) by creating a “rule” that says “we don’t baptize during lent,” when this directly goes against the Church’s authoritative direction.

(Again, I’m not talking about what’s “desired,” or “typical,” or “special circumstances.”) I’m just saying…shouldn’t we be more responsible in educating our faithful as to the significance of the Baptism. By denying it in general, I see this as a major contradiction and source of confusion to those who won’t typically ask any questions about it (especially when they hold weddings during Lent!). Shouldn’t they be at least made aware of the facts and the recommendations?

Here’s a suggestion…
Instead of saying, "We don’t do baptisms during Lent, let’s say “…due to the salvific grace given by the sacrament, baptisms are engouraged within the first few weeks of birth (as the Church says), but IF you choose to hold your child’s baptism during lent, then due to the nature of the lentin season it is suggested that you refrain from indulging yourselves with…(you can fill in the rest).”

This way, no one is unjustly being denied the sacrament, no one is being “pressured” into waiting OR rushing, and everyone is being catechized.

I agree with this - it does need to be explained in an honest way, so that parents can make realistic choices for their children. And they should not be doing weddings, either, especially without explaining that there are no parties/celebrations allowed during Lent, due to the fact that it is a season of fasting and penance.

PS: It would also allow them to consider the fact that if their child’s birthday is usually going to be during Lent, whether they want to schedule the baptism for a date that would normally fall during the Easter season, so that they can have a party for the child each year on that date, instead of on the Lenten birthday - so it could work both ways, and parents would be making choices based on complete data.

 

[Brendan]

In our history the bishop did the baptizing and the confirming at the same time…then as history took its course…he could be in fewer and fewer places…so the priest/deacon became an ordinary minister of baptism…but confirmation remained reserved to the bishop…

It’s all part of the history of how the order of sacraments got to be a little out of whack.

Do you have any documentation for your position?

I think you are confusing it with Confirmation.

As Acts 8 clearly shows, deacons were baptizing, and then the bishops followed with Confirmation. That’s about as early in the Church as you can get.

 

[frommi]

Do you have any documentation for your position?

I think you are confusing it with Confirmation.

As Acts 8 clearly shows, deacons were baptizing, and then the bishops followed with Confirmation. That’s about as early in the Church as you can get.

paulturner.org/confirmation_roots.htm

 

[Brendan]

And what is your point with that link?

 

[frommi]

And what is your point with that link?

Well for starters that there is some evidence that the bishop was probably the ‘baptizer’, and that your bibilical references may not be as cut and dried as you think.

 

[Brendan]

Well for starters that there is some evidence that the bishop was probably the ‘baptizer’, and that your bibilical references may not be as cut and dried as you think.

Pope Paul VI considered Philip’s Baptism in Acts 8 to be Baptism, not confirmation, because he uses the following actions of Peter and John to be a Scriptural example of Confirmation.

With regard to the words of the rite by which the Holy Spirit is given, it should be noted
that already in the primitive Church Peter and John, in order to complete the initiation of those baptized in Samaria, prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit and then laid hands on them (see Acts8:15-17).

In the East the first traces of the expression “seal of the
gift of the Holy Spirit” appeared in the fourth and fifth centuries.20 The expression was quickly accepted by the Church of Constantinople and still is a use in Byzantine-Rite
Churches.

(Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Confirmation)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also confirms that Deacon Phillip was the Baptizer there.

That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: “It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach.” Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts 8) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles.

I’d rather trust Pope Paul and the Catholic Encylopedia on this matter than Mr Turner.

 

[frommi]

Pope Paul VI considered Philip’s Baptism in Acts 8 to be Baptism, not confirmation, because he uses the following actions of Peter and John to be a Scriptural example of Confirmation.

(Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Confirmation)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also confirms that Deacon Phillip was the Baptizer there.

I’d rather trust Pope Paul and the Catholic Encylopedia on this matter than Mr Turner.

Well…it’s Fr. Turner…and I missed the part where Paul VI spoke infaliby on the issue.

 

[sfp]

Well…it’s Fr. Turner…and I missed the part where Paul VI spoke infaliby on the issue.

This is very interesting…
Mr. Turner doesn’t even refer to himself as “Fr.” on his own website. (not that it would make any difference if he did…there are many priests who are not really “Catholic”).

The title of “Fr.” doesn’t give instant credibility…but the title “Pope” does, whether or not he’s speaking “from the chair.”

 

[Brendan]

Well…it’s Fr. Turner…and I missed the part where Paul VI spoke infaliby on the issue.

It doesn’t matter if it’s infallible or not. An Apostolic Constitution is still a higher source that a theological opinion.

If I had to accept one over the other, why should I choose Fr. Turner over a Papal teaching document?

 

[frommi]

The title of “Fr.” doesn’t give instant credibility…but the title “Pope” does, whether or not he’s speaking “from the chair.”

Are we including the John XII in that?

 

[frommi]

It doesn’t matter if it’s infallible or not. An Apostolic Constitution is still a higher source that a theological opinion.

If I had to accept one over the other, why should I choose Fr. Turner over a Papal teaching document?

But both are still theological ‘opinions’, and besides we are talking about history here…not opinion.

It makes sense that when baptism and confirmation where completed in one ceremony that the bishop would have done it…doesn’t it?