Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: pagan baptism? theory and practice Message-ID: Date: 2 Nov 90 09:06:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@porthos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 111 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Please pardon my dwelling on this topic -- it is hardly one of those matters important to our living in Christ, at our Lord's command. But it nags at my historical and theological consciousness, and I can hope that reflecting on it *may* provide some perspective on the more serious issues confronting Christians. First, the conception that non-Christians *can* baptize is of fairly respectable antiquity (but late as patristic data goes, and entirely Western -- which may tend to explain why the Orthodox do not accept this turn of thought). The (older) Catholic Encycolpedia notes: "The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: 'The Sacrament of Baptism... no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation.' St. Isidore of Seville ... declares 'The Spirit of God adminsters the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing.' Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp. 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid." There are continuing later statements (from Florence, e.g.). But these already strike me as somewhat discordant with earlier statements. In Tertullian, there is an affirmation that the laity may baptize, "speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: 'He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can.'" This doesn't *contradict* pagan baptism, but it needs to be seen in Tertullian's context, which ordinarily *restricts* baptism to be the office of the bishop, or in his absence the priest (then heirarchically on down to deacons, laymen and even -- failing any better minister :-) -- to women. There is a statement in Jerome, however, that comes very close to my own "sense" of the matter (Adv. Lucif. IX), 'In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give.' That final clause cannot bear any reasonable interpretation unless Jerome is *assuming* a baptized person as minister. I do not *reject* the Catholic theory of this sacrament, but like Jerome I *operate* under the assumption that Christians bring others into our (extant) community. The Roman sacramental theory on this is that if the "matter" (water) and "form" ('I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit') are correct, and the *intent* is what the Church intends in its normal baptisms, the sacrament is valid. My Episcopalian (high church) informants give me the same theory and so are unsure whether the BCP restriction is simply a rubrical one or constitutes underlying doctrine; I have not (yet :-)) found anything on our library shelves that indicates whether or not we *have* a determinate position here. It is interesting that in Lutheran/Roman ecumenical dialog on this issue, *some* Lutherans adopt the Roman theory about form and matter and intent, but some also take the position that the minister must be Christian. I wonder whether the Anglican position might not be equally indeterminate. Now, about practice. I haven't explored Roman casuistical works, but the encyclopedias suggest to me that the main "use" of this doctrine is in the context of fatal childbirth with a midwife or physician who is not Christian. Such a person could be instructed (by the mother, for example) to perform a baptism as both mother and child are dying. This *is* a possible scenario (notably, in the Spain of Isidore or in the Bulgarian case). I would be interested to know if any other scenarios suggest themselves to s.r.c. readers. One reason this whole thread is so silly, however, is that Rome does NOT "really" accept baptisms even by Protestants, let alone by pagans. If the "intent" in Protestant baptisms is questionable, how can it even be seriously suggested that a pagan intends what the Church does? The suspicions about Protestant baptism express themselves (usually) in *conditionally* baptizing converts to Catholicism, not in "absolute" baptism, normally -- so at least there is a formal acknowledgment that the former baptism *may* have been OK (but in view of the theory above that admission amounts to *very* little!) Let me cite the Catholic Encyclopedias. First, the New C.E. "In 1570 Pius V recognized Calvinist Baptism, but there has been a less favorable view toward Protestant Baptism in the Church since that time. Except when one is absolutely certain, by knowing the minister, his doctrinal positions, and liturgical practice, that the Baptism is not doubtful, the practice today is to rebaptize conditionally." The (older) C.E. gives a more expansive statement of the doubts: "the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called into question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pro- nounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accur- ately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may reasonably be doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Epis- copalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration..." In case it is not obvious, the "reasonable doubts" above amount to a rather blanket unwillingness to accept baptism by other denominations of Christians. If a Catholic is expected to have a "well-grounded fear" of Episcopalian baptisms, I cannot see *any* practical case in which a pagan baptism could be even remotely conceived to have been of a proper "intent." By contrast, the apparently stricter position of the Episcopalians (*only* a baptized Christian may baptize) turns out to be in practice a basic acceptance of the practice of others, so long as they do in fact baptize by water in the name of the Trinity. -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee