Swimming the Tiber 21: The Sacraments: Anointing of the Sick

Written by on · Leave a Comment

And [they] were throwing out many demons, and [they] were anointing with olive oil many sickly [people] and [they] were treating [them].

– Mark 6:13 (my translation)

Is anyone among you sickly? Let [him] summon the elders(presbyters) of the church, and let [them] offer prayers upon him, having anointed {him} with olive oil in the name of the lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sicklit. toiling / working [man], and the lord will wake him; and if [he] is [one] having madeor has made; this periphrastic construction focuses on his current state–i.e., that he is in a state of sin–rather than the action specifically errors, [it] will be forgiven for him. Confess, therefore, to each other [your] errors and prayer on behalf of each other, in order that [you] may be cured.(cure [each other’s illnesses]) An efficacious petition of a just man is very powerful.

– James 5:14-16 (my translation)

To be perfectly honest, I don’t have much to say about this sacrament. As a Protestant, I never put much stock in anointing sick people–in a twist of position, I considered it a little too unscientific–but I didn’t have any sort of problem with the practice. It is Scriptural, after all.

In the Catholic Church, where miracles are evaluated fairly regularly, the idea that a holy process could cure the sick isn’t so far-fetched. In fact, the biggest problem in the Church regarding this sacrament is what to call it. The older name for the sacrament (starting in the early-to-mid twelfth century) is “Extreme Unction,” literally meaning “last anointing.” The point of the word “extreme” here is not entirely clear; it could refer simply to being the last in a series of anointings (a Christian is anointed at baptism and confirmation as well), but–especially in modern parlance–it is more likely due to the sacrament’s association with the “Last Rites.”

The phrase “Last Rites” should not, by the way, be used synonymously with this sacrament. The Last Rites actually refer to the administration of three sacraments–penance (or confession, or reconciliation), the Eucharist (because it is the source and summit of our faith, so let’s receive it as often as possible), and “extreme unction” or the “anointing of the sick.”

The name was changed in the mid-twentieth century to avoid the association. Properly, the sacrament can be received any time a person is in a dangerous position, medically speaking. Naturally, the deathbed fits this description, but so does the surgical table or a cancer diagnosis.

The only other controversies I can imagine around this sacrament involve questions of a loving God and the nature of suffering, but that is beyond the scope of this particular post. If you want to read more about the Catholic position on this sacrament, the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses it beginning in paragraph 1499 and continuing through 1532. If you have specific questions, of course, feel free to ask them, and I will seek out the answers if I don’t know them already.

Otherwise, enjoy having a light week, and look forward to next week when I talk about something quite a bit more controversial: sacramentals and the declaration that some objects are holy before the Lord.

Last Post:
The Sacraments: Holy Orders
Next Post:
Holy Water, Crucifixes, and Other Vampire-Killing Miscellany

Swimming the Tiber 20: The Sacraments: Holy Orders

Written by on · Leave a Comment

About three months ago, I talked about the priesthood of believers. A month after that, I talked about how virginity is a virtue. I’ve also talked a few times about how Catholic priests operate in persona Christi, “in the person of Christ.”

All of this works into my examination of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Ordination is not, in and of itself, particularly controversial; almost all Protestant denominations refer to the process of naming someone a pastor as “ordination,” in no small part because it’s Scriptural (Luke 6:12-13; Acts 6:2-6; 13:2-3; 14:23; 1 Timothy 2:7; 4:14; Titus 1:5-9). Technically, the term refers to the appointment of someone to a particular office or responsibility, and so it also appears elsewhere in Scripture in that context.

Controversy comes from two places primarily. First, many Protestants are offended at the requirement of celibacy for Catholic priests, and second, many groups altogether are offended at the requirement of masculinity. These are not similar objections, for the requirement of celibacy is mutable (it is a discipline, not a doctrine), and the requirement of being male is not.

For the question of celibacy, this really should be a non-issue. Recall that virginity is a virtue, which St. Paul recommended and the Church has always admired throughout history. Second, this discipline is not set in stone. It is the way things are currently done in the Roman rite of the Church, but Eastern Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox priests) are allowed to be married before becoming ordained. Similarly, if you are a Lutheran minister or Anglican priest and are married, and you convert to Catholicism, you may be allowed to become a Catholic priest and remain married. Likewise, widowers are not prevented from becoming priests. Marriage and the priesthood are not mutually exclusive states by essential doctrine, but merely in practice.

Nevertheless, it is the practice at the current time. I think anyone seeking to change that practice would have a difficult go of it–but certainly they would have a much easier time than those opposing my next point.

Being in favor of “women’s ordination” is a fairly popular position these days. I recently watched a sermon on the subject, in fact, which outlined the “major objections” to the practice and then refuted them. Each and every argument the teacher opposed was about putting women in positions of authority, and I agreed with almost everything he said (some of his exegesis was bad, but that happens sometimes). That’s because I have nothing against putting qualified women in positions of authority, but Catholic priesthood is so much more than a position of authority.

For example, if a woman obtains the proper education, I have no objection if they teach in a seminary. I have no objection if they lead a Bible study. I have no objections, likewise, if a woman of appropriate disposition works as an administrator or counselor or in any other position in which pastors find themselves. In short, assuming basic qualifications, I have nothing against women as Protestant ministers, and as much as any man, women participate in the priesthood of believers.

But a woman cannot be the vicar of Christ.

It’s not about qualifications or education or disposition. It’s about nature. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born as a man. (Recall that priests act in persona Christi. Maleness is essential to this function.) The essential functions of the priesthood – the conveyance of the sacraments being the prime example – are reserved to men in the New Testament (to the Twelve especially, and by them to other men); only men are told by Christ or his apostles to forgive sins (John 20:22-23), to anoint the sick (Matthew 10:5-8; James 5:14-15), to baptize (Matthew 28:16-20), to share the Eucharist (Luke 22:19-20), and to ordain (Acts 1:12-26; note especially St. Peter’s requirement that the replacement be a man in verse 21).

“But,” some will say, “it’s unfair for men to be given this advantage of power over women! We should all be equal!”

Or perhaps you do not use these words, but you have some gut feeling that there is inequality here, because priests have authority which women do not have. Let us take a moment to see the advantage of power given to men in this office.

First, they must attain to a higher standard than the rest of us:

Many [of you], do not become teachers, my brothers, knowing that [we] will receive a larger judgment.

– James 3:1 (my translation)
(see also Ephesians 4:11-16; Titus 1:5-9; 2:7-8; 2 Timothy 2:14-26)

In this, they must especially be humble, not seeking power, but seeking only to serve:

When therefore [he] washed their feet {and} [he] took his clothes and [he] reclined again, [he] said to them, “Do [you] know what [I] have done to you? You call me ‘the teacher’ and ‘the lord,’ and [you] speak beautifully, for [I] am. If, therefore, I have washed your feet as the lord and the teacher, then also you are bound to wash the feet of others; for [I] have given a sign to you in order that, just as I did to you, you may also do. Amen, amen, [I] say to you, a slave is not greater than his lord nor [is] an apostle greater than the [one] having sent him. If [you] know these [things], [you] are blessed if [you] do them. [I] speak not about all of you; I know whom [I] chose; but [it is thus] in order that the writing may be fulfilled, ‘The [one] eating my breadsome manuscripts: bread with me; others: my bread with me lifted up his heel against me.’ From now on [I] say to you before the happening, in order that [you] may believe when [it] happens that I am. Amen, amen, [I] say to you, the [one] receiving whomever [I] send receives me, but the [one] receiving me receives the [one] having sent me.

– John 13:12-20 (my translation, emphasis original)
(see also Matthew 20:25-28)

They will be specially targeted by the devil and evil people:

Offer yourselves also to the whole flock, in which the Spirit, the holy [one], placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God,some manuscripts: the lord and God which [he] preserved through blood–his own. I know that, after my departure,lit. arrival grievous wolves will go in among you, not sparing the flock, and out of you yourselves [they] will rise up, prattling distorted [things] in order to tear off students after them. Wherefore be fully awake, remembering that for three years, night and day [I] did not cease, with tears, admonishing each one.

– Acts 20:28-31 (my translation, emphasis original)
(see also 1 Peter 5:6-8)

The people will not appreciate them (2 Timothy 4:1-5). They must at all times beware hypocrisy in themselves (Romans 2:21-23) and, should they err, they will be held to account, not only for their own sins, but for the sins of those who follow them:

For amen, [I] say to you: until the sky passes by, and the earth, not one jot or one serif will pass by from the law, until all [things] come to be. Whoever, therefore, releases one of these commands, [even one] of the smallest [ones], and teaches people thus, [he] will be called smallest in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does [these commands] and teaches [them], this [man] will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

– Matthew 5:18-19 (my translation)
(see also Ezekiel 13:8-16; Matthew 7:15-20; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Peter 2; 2 John 1:7-11)

And whoever welcomes one child such as this upon my name welcomes me. But whoever trips one of these little [ones], the [ones] believing in me, [it] is expedient for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and [that he] be drowned in the depth of the sea.idiom; lit. the ocean of the sea or similar Woe to the cosmos because of stumbling blocks; for [it is] a necessity that stumbling blocks come, except woe to the person through whom the stumbling block comes.

– Matthew 18:5-7 (my translation)
(see also Ezekiel 33:7-9; Luke 17:1-2; 1 Timothy 5:17-22)

The priesthood is not a privilege or a boon or power or authority or superiority. It is an act of self-sacrifice, not self-aggrandizement. It is self-giving, not taking. If it is unfair that only men may be priests, then it is unfair toward men. Women, by contrast, are held in high honor in the Catholic Church, for only a woman was deemed worthy to bear the Savior (Luke 1:30-31); only a woman was able to persuade Christ, the Lord, to perform miracles before his time had come (John 2:1-11); throughout the Gospels, Jesus treated women with respect and honor; a woman was praised for her contemplative life (Luke 10:41-42), women saw him laid in the tomb (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55), and a woman first saw the risen Lord (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:9-10; John 20:11-18).

The priesthood is not restricted to men because women are inferior to it; on the contrary, women are treated as equal to men in the Lord (Galatians 3:28) and honored besides. The restriction, then, established first by Christ and then by his apostles, throughout the whole tradition of the Church, has that cause which I have already detailed: priests act in persona Christi, and by the command of Jesus Christ and his chosen apostles, this office is exclusive to men. God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of the Church and of men, men the head of women and the household (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). This is the order designed by God.

I’ve barely talked about the sacrament of Holy Orders, so I have likely done it a disservice. Like the other sacraments, it bestows grace on those who receive it, giving them the capacity to grow in holiness and be obedient to God. I have never had any dispute with the sacrament as such, so I felt compelled only to address (some of) the controversy about it.

Next week, I will talk about the last of the seven sacraments, after which I will return to a few more general Catholic topics. So look forward to a brief examination of the anointing of the sick/last rites/final unction when Swimming the Tiber returns!

Last Post:
The Sacraments: Marriage
Next Post:
The Sacraments: Anointing of the Sick

Swimming the Tiber 16: The Sacraments: The Eucharist (Part One)

Written by on · Leave a Comment

Tell me the story again
Tell me the story again
A Child in a manger bed
See the Virgin smile, for she understood

Now grow up and break your bread
Pour your cup of wine
On a cross of wood
A cross of wood
A cross of wood

– Chris Rice, “Tell Me the Story Again”

The faithful, incorporated in the Church through baptism, are destined toward the cultivation of the Christian religion by its character and, regenerated into sons of God, they are bound to profess, in the presence of men, the faith that they accepted from God through the Church. By the sacrament of confirmation they are bound more perfectly to the Church; they are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit, and thus they are held more closely to the faith, which ought at the same time to be poured out and defended, as true witnesses of Christ in word and deed. Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the wellspring and summit of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine Victim to God and their very selves along with It.

– Lumen Gentium 11 (my translation)

The Eucharist is the greatest mystery of the Christian faith. I am tempted to put qualifiers–“perhaps” it is the greatest mystery, or “maybe” it is–but no, I can say with confidence that the Eucharist is the greatest mystery of the Christian faith. It is with no small amount of trepidation, then, that I undertake this task of explaining such a mystery in the sort of brief terms that my medium allows.

The first step, I think, is to lay out clearly what the Catholic Church really teaches. With most topics, I think, I try to build up to the teaching of the Church, or at least reveal it a step at a time, but there is so much confusion and misinformation about the Eucharist–even among Catholics, who ought to know better–that I think it important to state it up front.

The Eucharist, that is, the unleavened bread and wine offered at every Catholic Mass, is physically, really, actually, for all intents and purposes, the literal Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Christ’s presence in the species of bread and wine is called the Real Presence, not because his presence through prayer or Scripture isn’t real, but because, in the Eucharist, he is substantially present.

Here, species means something like vehicle. The bread and wine do not disappear, and indeed, the Eucharist still tastes like bread and wine, but they truly become Christ’s own Body and Blood. Every piece of the host (another term for the species) is the wholeness of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is why Catholics are so cautious about the whole deal. If you drop a crumb, you must pick it up immediately and, if it is clean, consume it; if it gets too dirty to eat, you must dissolve it with water and pour it directly into the earth; if it is taken by some nefarious person and sold or given to Satanists for their “black mass,” the profanation of our Savior’s Body is deplorable.

And when I say substantially present, I really mean present in substance. The Eucharist does not represent or symbolize the Body of Christ; it is the Body of Christ.

Okay, by now, I’m sure you’re flipping out. If you haven’t just closed the site in frustration, I appreciate your patience. Because while I’ve defined the Eucharist, I haven’t explained it. I haven’t justified a word of it yet. So let’s dig in a little bit and take a look at why the Catholic Church believes this.

The Simple Explanation

The so-called “simple explanation” is that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood because he said it is. It seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? Just read Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. These are the moments of institution for this sacrament, when Christ laid out for us how to receive it, and he says quite plainly, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood.” He does not say that it symbolizes his Body, or represents his Blood, but he says that it is.

Too simple for you? Easily refuted, you say? Fair enough. Let’s step up our game.

The Johannine Explanation

The Gospel of John doesn’t actually include the institution of the Eucharist. Surely this must be some mistake, right? The “wellspring and summit of the whole Christian life” isn’t represented in one of the Gospels? Probably not that important, then, huh?

Well, John does include talk of the Eucharist–more, in fact, than the synoptic Gospels do. But he doesn’t include it via the Lord’s Supper, but rather through Christ’s teaching. Read John 6:25-65. Here we see Christ declare, in very clear terms, that eating his Body is necessary for salvation. Without it, he says, “you have no life in you” (NRSV). This is some of the strongest Eucharistic language in all of Scripture. “But-but-but!” you say, “What about John 6:63? It clearly says the flesh is useless, so he must mean something else.”

Well, I struggled with this for a little while, because it wasn’t quite clear, but as usual, St. Augustine provides us with an easy (if loquacious) answer.

What is it, then, that He adds? “It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing.” Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him”? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means “the flesh profits nothing”? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profits nothing,” in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffs up.” Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffs up”? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, “but charity edifies” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, “the flesh profits nothing,” only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing,” as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

– St. Augustine, Tractate 27 paragraph 5 (trans. John Gibb)

But perhaps you are unconvinced. Let’s carry on.

The Pauline Explanation

St. Paul reminds us that, just as there is only one Body of Christ, there is also only one bread, though we break it and share it and eat it. Read 1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 11:27-32. Combined with the institution narrative we saw earlier, this clearly indicates the sameness of the Body of Christ and the bread of the supper we share. See also Romans 12:4-5; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:4-6.

If you’re still unconvinced, let me run through one final explanation in the hopes that overwhelming evidence will sway you.

The Typological Explanation

We Catholics looooove typology. It comes from being intellectually descended of the school of Alexandria rather than exclusively that of Antioch. Being able to look at Scripture, especially the Old Testament, and find precursors of the New Testament–it’s a good feeling. God gave us these hints all along the way, and we couldn’t see them for what they were until he revealed the full truth later. So it is that we talk about Israel as a type of the Church, the parting of the Red Sea as a type of baptism, and Adam as a type of Christ.

Some important things to remember about types: (1) They’re always inferior to the thing they foreshadow. Adam fell, but Christ rose. The escaping Israelites almost immediately constructed a golden calf to return to their dead ways, but baptism grants an indelible mark of grace. Israel strayed time and again, but the Church clings to the teachings handed down to us by Christ and his Apostles. (2) They’re typically both literal and allegorical, meaning they had a real, historical existence that made sense in context, but they also prefigure a deeper reality. This also means that you can’t extend the metaphor too far; the type is only an incomplete representation.

So let’s sprint through a few types of the Eucharist, shall we?

Our first stop is the garden of Eden, where eating is extremely important. Obviously, the fruit of the tree of life is a precursor of Christ, whose Body hung on a tree, from which we eat his flesh and gain eternal life. But there is also the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; it’s a kind of reverse type, which we will see again in this series later. For by the consumption of one food (of death) we were condemned and died, so by the consumption of another (one of life) we are granted eternal life.

Next, we join Abram for his blessing by the priest-king Melchizedek (Genesis 14). Here, we see that Melchizedek brought out “bread and wine” (verse 18), and of course we know (from Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5-7) that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, but we know that he offered not bread and wine, but his own Body and Blood.

Then of course there is the Passover (Exodus 12). The parallels here are drawn when Christ uses this backdrop to institute the Eucharist. But not just the bread and wine are precursors here; so also the sacrificial lamb, which they killed and ate. And they spread its blood on the doorposts. (If you don’t see Christ crucified every time someone talks about blood on an upright wooden structure, you’ve been missing out.)

Quick, to the wilderness with the Israelites (Exodus 16)! Jesus himself draws this comparison in John 6, which I hope you’ve already read; Jesus is the bread from heaven, the true bread, which satisfies forever. Manna came from God, but only satisfied for a time; Jesus’ one sacrifice on the cross fills us for all eternity. Note also that a jar of this manna was placed in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 16:33-34; Hebrews 9:4), which was so called because it contained the covenant of God (Exodus 25:16) and it was there that God’s presence came forth to speak to the Israelites (Exodus 25:22). There’s also the Bread of the Presence (Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:7). And what contains or holds these breads (you might call it the vehicle) should not be touched by any unworthy person (2 Samuel 6:7-8; see again 1 Corinthians 11:27-32).

Let’s jump ahead to Elijah, who was fed bread by ravens (1 Kings 17) and cake by an angel (1 Kings 19). This latter kept him nourished for forty days, just as Christ fasted forty days in his own wilderness.

Then to Elisha, who fed a hundred men with twenty loaves of barley in 2 Kings 4. This reminds us instantly of Christ’s feeding of the multitudes, which were similar miracles, but all the more vast (five and seven loaves instead of twenty, thousands instead of a hundred), and were themselves a type of the Eucharist (a small body of bread, broken and shared among many).

Skip to the Prophets. Ezekiel ate a scroll (Ezekiel 3). That’s kinda weird, huh? At least until you think about how Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and we consume his Body for our salvation.

But enough Old Testament. Let’s look at some New Testament types!

Paul tells us (1 Corinthians 15:20) that Jesus was the first fruits of those who died. On the one hand, we know that this means more will follow, but it also means we sacrifice him and eat his Body (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Leviticus 2:14; 23; Deuteronomy 18:3-4; 26; Nehemiah 10:35; Judith 11:13; etc.).

I’ve already mentioned the miracles of feeding the multitudes, but they’re worth another shout-out (Matthew 14:15-21; 15:32-38; Mark 6:35-44; 8:1-8; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:1-14).

And there are more, but this post grows long, and there’s just one more that I want to mention. In all God’s wisdom and authority, when he became man and dwelt among us, in his very first moments out in the light, breathing air alongside us, he could have been laid anywhere–but he was laid in a manger.1

Next week, I want to keep looking at the Eucharist–now that I have established, in some small way, what the Eucharist is, I still need to look at what it does in the Christian life. It will likely be a much shorter post than this one, but it covers some important topics that still need to be addressed.

Last Post:
The Sacraments: Confirmation
Next Post:
The Sacraments: The Eucharist (Part Two)
Footnotes:
1 The English word manger derives from French mangier (“to eat”), originally from Latin mandere (“to chew”). In English, it technically means the place where food for animals is placed (like a trough).

Romans 10

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1Brothers, the good will of my heart and the petition of God over them [is]some manuscripts: over them is; others: over Israel is until salvation. 2For [I] witness to them that [they] have jealousy(zeal) of God,a but not according to(in accordance with) knowledge; 3for, not perceiving the justice of God and seeking to stand up their own {justice}, [they] were not obedient tolit. placed under the justice of God;b 4for the end of the law [is] Christ unto justice for everyone believing.c

5For Moses writes on justice, the [justice] fromhere and in verse 6, lit. out of the law, that the man having done them [the things of the law] will live in them.d 6But the justice from faith says thus, “Do not sayThis is a prohibitive subjunctive; it’s typical for negative commands, rather than the imperative; literally, this is more like, “May you not say!” but still carries the weight of a command. in thy heart, ‘Who will go up into the sky?'” that is, to bring Christ down, 7or, “‘Who will go down into the abyss?'” that is, to bring Christ up out of [the] dead. 8But what does [it] say? “The sayinghere and throughout, (word) is near to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,”e that is, the saying of faith which [we] proclaim. 9Because if [thou] agreehere and in verse 10, lit. are of the same mind or thinking in thy mouth that Jesus [is] lord and [thou] believe that God raised him out of [the] dead, [thou] will be saved; 10for [it] is believed by heart unto justice and [it] is agreed by mouth unto salvation. 11For the writing says, everyone “believing upon him will not be dishonored.”f 12For there is not a separation both of Jew and of Greek,g for he himself [is] lord of all, being wealthy unto all the [ones] calling upon him; 13for “everyone who calls upon the name of the lord will be saved.”h

14How therefore would [they] call upon [him] in whom [they] did not believe? And how would [they] believe [in him] of whom [they] did not hear? And how would [they] hear apart from [one] proclaiming [it]? 15And how would [they] proclaim [it] if [they] were not sent?Of the possible words St. Paul could have used, this one is directly derivative of the root of our word apostle. Thus, only those given authority from God (through the Church) should go out and preach, not just anyone with a Bible. (Compare the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39.) Just as [it] is written, “How timely [are] the feetsome manuscripts add of the [ones] bringing the good news of peace of the [ones] bringing good news.”lit. bringing good [things] as good news or bringing the good news of good [things]i 16But not all [men] listened to the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who believed our tidings?”j 17Then faith [comes] out of tidings,k and tidings through the saying of Christ.some manuscripts: of God; others omit 18But [I] say, [they] did not hear, did they? On the contrary,See the note on this same phrase in Romans 9:20. “Their voice went out into all the earth and their sayings into the ends of the inhabited world.”l 19But [I] say, Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I will provoke you to jealousy upon [one who is] not a nation, and upon a witless(unintelligible) nation [I] will provoke you to anger.”m 20And Isaiah makes a bold venture and says, “[They] were found {among} the [ones] not seeking me; [I] became manifest to the [ones] not consulting me.”n 21But to Israel [I] say, “For the whole day [I] spread out my hands to a people refusing and contradicting [me].”o

Cross-references:
a [they] have jealousy of God: cf. Acts 22:3
b verse 3: cf. Romans 9:31-32
c verse 4: cf. Matthew 5:17; John 3:18; Hebrews 8:13
d the man having…live in them: Leviticus 18:5; cf. Galatians 3:12
e Do not say…in thy heart: Deuteronomy 9:4; 30:12-14
f believing upon him…not be dishonored: Isaiah 28:16; cf. Romans 9:33
g For there is…and of Greek: cf. Acts 10:34; 15:9
h everyone who calls…will be saved: Joel 2:32
i How timely [are]…bringing good news: Isaiah 52:7; cf. Nahum 1:15; Ephesians 6:15
j Lord, who believed our tidings: Isaiah 53:1; cf. John 12:38
k faith [comes] out of tidings: cf. John 17:20
l Their voice went…the inhabited world: Psalm 19:4
m I will provoke…you to anger: Deuteronomy 32:21
n [They] were found…not consulting me: Isaiah 65:1
o For the whole…and contradicting [me]: Isaiah 65:2 (Septuagint)

Swimming the Tiber 14: The Sacraments: Baptism (Part Two)

Written by on · Leave a Comment

Last week, I talked about how the purpose and effect of baptism is to forgive sins and unite the believer to the Body of Christ (as opposed to merely signifying a declaration of faith on the part of a person old enough to make such a decision).

This week, I’m going to tackle the second point of contention: when to baptize somebody.

As a Baptist, I always had a ready answer to the question of infant baptism: “It’s not Scriptural!” Indeed, infant baptism is never mentioned explicitly in Scripture. All attempts to root the practice in Scripture are ultimately reliant on Tradition, rather that the text itself, to establish that interpretation. But to be fair, “believer’s baptism” for children at the age of reason is never mentioned in Scripture, either. At no point is the baptism of the children of believers ever mentioned, either as infants or as adolescents.

In fact, every instance of baptism in Scripture is the baptism of a convert.

So we must rely on some other principle of interpretation to determine when a person ought to be baptized. For the Baptist, this is an extrapolation of “believer’s baptism,” with the assumption that a five- or six- or seven- or eight-year-old child is capable of belief. (Looking back, I think that was not at all the reality for me; genuine faith may well be possible for some children, but it was so far beyond my comprehension then that you may as well have asked me to be baptized on account of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, or the dual nature of Christ, or that that photons behave as both particles and waves, or that black holes are so massive that they generate enough gravity to prevent even light from escaping them. I’d have probably agreed to it because you made it sound like I should.)

But for the Catholic, there are a few things we rely on. First, we rely on the strength of Tradition. Certainly, infant baptism was the tradition of the early Church, because Church Fathers as early as St. Irenaeus defended it–and he would not likely have defended the practice in AD 190 if he had not been baptized as an infant himself 50-60 years before, probably by St. Polycarp. By that time, Polycarp was a bishop, but in his younger years he was a student of St. John (the Evangelist, who wrote five books of the New Testament, and was the beloved disciple of Jesus). Could the message of Christ have been so corrupted so quickly? Or is it more likely that St. John taught St. Polycarp to baptize the infant children of the faithful, who then taught it to St. Irenaeus, whose writings on that very subject we still have to this day?

As Catholics, we also rely on the purpose of baptism, which, as you may have now surmised, is why I have addressed these questions in reverse. That is, if the purpose of baptism was merely to signify a declaration of faith, then of course, we should wait until a child is old enough to declare his or her faith. (You may as well say that an infant or a child is capable of declaring their future career or whom they will marry, except that matters of faith are not so trivial as these things–which suggests we should wait even longer to be sure of a child’s faith.) But if, as I discussed last week, baptism is efficacious to forgive sins and unite someone with the Church, the act is independent of the chosen faith of the child, and it should not depend on their state of belief, but on whether or not their parents want them to be part of the Body of Christ.

I don’t know any Christian parent who does not want their children to be part of the Church. And if someone did not, could you really call them Christian?

This capacity of baptism to forgive sins and grant access to the sacraments of the Church also means that a child who has not been baptized remains subject to original sin, the old self, their sinful nature, almost to adolescence (or beyond, if something interferes with the development of their faith). And we live in a broken world where life is unexpectedly short. Does it make any kind of sense to leave our children enslaved to their own sins, knowing full well they may die at any moment, and be lost forever? Or, rather, should we intervene on their behalf, not hindering them, but letting them come to Christ (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)?

I have read an objection to this argument, saying that this vignette opposes infant baptism, because Jesus did not baptize the children, but only blessed them. But we know (John 4:1-2) that Jesus did not baptize anyone at all with water, but his disciples did, so why would he have baptized these children? But he blesses, he forgives sins, and, by his presence, people are healed. These are the extraordinary means of salvation, and, by design, we have access mainly to the ordinary means; that is to say, Jesus can forgive and heal by word and touch, but we obtain forgiveness through baptism and obedience.

And while there is no direct mention of infant baptism in Scripture, we do see whole households being baptized under the faith of their heads. Acts 16:13-15 tells the story of the conversion of Lydia and her household; Acts 18:8 of Crispus and his household; and 1 Corinthians 1:16 of Stephanas and his household. Now, of course, you may argue that these households might not have had infants or children at all, or that they might have been excluded from the baptism of their family–but the text doesn’t say that, either. As long as we’re arguing from silence (which is a terrible thing to do), the text makes no mention of anyone in Lydia’s household believing before their baptism, or of anyone in Stephanas’ household believing at all. The head of a household is responsible for the faith of that household; that’s why fathers have such weight of responsibility (see Ephesians 6:1-9; Colossians 3:18-25). Whether there are infants in each of these households is not relevant to the question; what’s important here is that those with responsibility to pass on the faith do so, and part of that is including one’s children in the Body of Christ (perhaps even the most important part, though certainly raising a child cannot be in the least discounted).

It is crucial to remember that baptism is the covenantal sign of our faith, as circumcision was before Christ. St. Paul makes this clear in his epistle to the Colossians:

In whom also [you] were circumcised1 with a circumcision not made by hand in the divestment of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried together with him in baptism, in which also [you] were assembled through the faith of the action of God, the [one] having roused him out of [the] dead; and you, being dead {in} the blunders and the uncircumcision2 of your flesh, [he] made you alive together with him, having forgiven for us all the blunders, having plastered over the [note] against us handwritten3 with doctrines, which [note] was opposed to us, and [he] has lifted it up out of [our] midst, having nailed it to the cross.

– Colossians 2:11-14
Footnotes:
1 Lit. “cut around”; compare with circumcision, from Latin circum, around, and caedo, to cut.
2 Lit. “the foreskin”
3 Here means a note of debt, in this case a legal one (from “doctrines,” just following); on top of having this meaning, the word χειρόγραφον (handwritten) is wonderfully juxtaposed with ἀχειροποιήτῳ (not made by hand) above. Baptism is a spiritual and divine reality which “plasters over” the frail pages recording human sin.

We see again that it is baptism which buries us with Christ and raises us up with him, whereby also our sins are forgiven us. It joins us to God’s family through his Son. And circumcision was commanded for every male at least eight days old, not because those infants grasped what it meant to be united to the covenant of God, but because anyone who was not circumcised was “cut off from his people” as one who had broken God’s covenant (Exodus 17:14).

Before I close, I do want to address one final point about when to baptize someone: rebaptism. In many Protestant circles, and among Baptists especially, it is common practice to rebaptize someone who either was baptized outside of a Baptist church or who had lost their way and wanted to recommit themselves to God. According to Catholic teaching, this is inappropriate at best. Baptism is once for life. You can’t get baptized again, not really. And whenever a sacrament has the proper form, it is assumed to be valid until proved otherwise–so baptisms (and marriages, which I’ll get to later) performed outside the Church are presumed valid, so we don’t rebaptize. The second “baptism” would be a farce. Consider Ephesians 4:4-6, which teaches us that there is one baptism into the one Body of Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 12:12-13).

The one exception to this is when the first “baptism” is done improperly (lacking the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as directed by Christ in Matthew 28). Compare this with Acts 19:1-7.

So you see how the Church understands baptism, and how I could go so far from what I believed before to what I believe now. I think that the proper perspective makes the Church’s teaching on baptism clear, but I spent a long time thinking that Catholics were not just wrong, but completely batty. It can be a hard change to make, but, looking back, I’m sure it was the right one.

Next week, I’ll be looking at the next of the seven sacraments: Confirmation.

Last Post:
The Sacraments: Baptism (Part One)
Next Post:
The Sacraments: Confirmation