LOL, leave it to WaPo to stir up trouble over the Phoenix baptism story

(((Michelle Boorstein))) right out of the box whips out her pilpul, here:

Their marriages, confessions, promises of salvation — all of these things ceased to exist for thousands of Catholics baptized by an Arizona priest who, it turns out, was saying the sacrament script wrong. ... diocesan officials ... said last month that people who Arango baptized aren’t technically Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible, from a Catholic point of view, for other sacraments.

 

Except the diocese didn't actually say so:

According to the Diocese of Phoenix, Arango remains in "good standing" as a priest and "has not disqualified himself from his vocation and ministry." As of right now, other sacraments performed by Arango are considered valid, the diocese said.

More. 

Still, ex opere operato is having a bad week.

The diocese is obviously confused because the bishop is. He evidently doesn't understand that doctrine. Though defending the "other sacraments performed" by the errant priest, the bishop nevertheless has said, "You will need to be baptized."

St. Augustine would have disagreed.

The bishop of Hippo in North Africa taught the church in the Donatist Controversy that the validity of sacraments doesn't depend on the character of the priest, or on his theology. The sacraments work by themselves as long as they are reasonably Christian and the individuals come under the jurisdiction of the Catholic church.

All the attention here is misplaced on the personal pronouns used, "I baptize you" vs. "We baptize you", in keeping with the spirit of the current age, when the triune formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" plus the corporate idea is the important thing according to Augustine. Arguably "We baptize you" emphasizes the latter, in good Augustinian manner.

Augustine's principles are charitable and Pauline. The bishops could learn from them.

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. 

-- Philippians 1:15ff.

 

 

 

The superstition around baptism remains strong in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron saint of the Diocese

Thousands of baptisms over 20 years were declared "invalid" and "nullified" in St. Gregory parish because the priest in question routinely said "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of "I baptize you . . .", an "incorrect formula" which failed to indicate that it is Christ who baptizes in the sacrament since it is the ordained priest who is uniquely invested with the spiritual power and presence of Christ:

"The issue with using 'We' is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes."

More.

This is pure magical thinking, an example of decadence, the degeneration of the original conception of baptism, from sign of repentance, renunciation of the world, and attachment to the new community of the elect to mysterious, wonder-working ritual imparting divine grace and forgiveness of sins.

The evidence of the Synoptics shows that Jesus himself did not baptize anyone like John the Baptist did. Only the Fourth Gospel says that Jesus so baptized, in John 3, but that is deliberately corrected in John 4 to state that Jesus himself did not baptize, and that only his disciples did.

Well, set aside the contradiction and ask, what formula did they use?

Did the disciples of Jesus use the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? 

The idea is preposterous.

So did that make those baptisms "invalid" and therefore null?

Totally kooky.

Magic is for a world continuing on into the indefinite future, with billions of possible customers. The baptism of repentance was for salvation from a world soon coming to an abrupt end. The failure of the latter paved the way for the former.

An instance of justification, without a cross, without a bloody sacrifice, without a Messiah, without baptism, without the Lord's supper, without the Sinner's Prayer, without a priest, without resurrection from the dead, without works, without faith, without belief, without knowledge, only remorse!

δεδικαιωμένος

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

-- Luke 18:13f.

Jesus did not become Messiah at his baptism, as Bill Johnson says, but was the Christ from his birth according to Luke

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

-- Luke 2:10f.

The Fourth Evangelist edits himself on whether Jesus himself baptized

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

 

-- John 3:22f.

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

 

-- John 4:1ff.

Mollie Hemingway cries sacrilege at Sarah Palin but forgets Luther's view that baptism kills

Mollie Hemingway gets her undies in a twist (here) because she thinks Sarah Palin's baptism joke at the NRA meeting was a sacrilege against the life-giving sacrament:

Sarah Palin gave a speech to members of the National Rifle Association, gathered in Indianapolis this weekend. She said something that struck me as sacrilegious ... [:] "Well, if I were in charge, [prisoners] would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.” ... Does [waterboarding] deliver those who are subjected to it from the devil, as Christian baptism does? Does it give them eternal life, as Christian baptism does? Is it voluntary, as Christian baptism is? It is none of these things. Joking about baptism in the context of this aggressive action suggests that we don’t think baptism is as life-giving or important as it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Except that the Lutheran understanding of baptism, as Mollie ought to know, also includes meting out death, and on a daily basis:

Fourthly.

What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Since waterboarding is never meant to kill but is a painful experience designed to get the truth out of someone, you might even say it bears a strong resemblence to the intent of baptism as Luther understood part of its purpose.

Sarah Palin may be many things, but in this case no one but a special pleading Lutheran grandstander looking for something to say would look at Sarah Palin's remarks and conclude she meant anything specifically religious by them. Her remarks might have been in bad taste, but it wasn't sacrilege.

After all, Sarah Palin knows an awful lot about bad taste.

A Romanist Defines John 3:3 By John 3:5, And So Requires Baptism To Be Saved

Roman Catholic interpretation of being born again is on display here, where being born of water and spirit is said to define being born again, a natural if mistaken view with a long pedigree:

In verse 5, Jesus clarifies what he meant by “born again,” saying a similar sentence again but substituting in the phrase “born of water and the Spirit.” While the term “born again” is vague enough to possibly mean simply a conversion experience, being “born of water and the Spirit” is obviously not, at least not exclusively – I’ve never seen anyone get wet from saying the sinner's prayer.

What Christian action involves water and the Holy Spirit? The answer: baptism. To be “born again” means to baptized. This is not only the current Catholic interpretation of this text (also held today by many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox), but also the interpretation given by the early Church Fathers – indeed all orthodox Christians prior to the 16th century Protestant Reformation. ...

Jesus is teaching something that evangelicals frequently deny, but that the Catholic Church has always maintained: that baptism is necessary for salvation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This exegesis pays no attention, needless to say, to the narrative's rich symbolisms featuring an adult skulking about in the dead of night as opposed to a helpless child who would fittingly be asleep in his bed at such a time and be approachable, naturally, only in the full light of day. It knows nothing of the need to recover the natural openness, submissiveness and wariness of evil characteristic of a child, to which the mature adult like Nicodemus has normally long past said farewell. Nicodemus' adult skepticism, of course, is notably presaged in the person of Nathanael already in 1:46.

Nor does the interpretation take any note of the difference between only "seeing" the kingdom in v. 3 and actually "entering" into it in v. 5, which suggests that being born again is different from actually believing and is instead the necessary praeparatio for conversion, a view consistent with the Synoptic triple tradition about little children, "of such is the kingdom of heaven". To be born again is something an adult must do, not a child, a vivid circumlocution for entrusting oneself to the care of the Father.

Submitting to baptism in v. 5 is clearly the theological point intended by the Evangelist, to be sure, but as such it is evidence of the Urkatholicismus which is not yet apparent even in the long endings later fabricated to finish the damaged Mark, where baptism is described but as yet not required.

Just another sign of "John's" later time and place, a correction of a prior narrative which was thought to be inadequate, Luke the historian's efforts notwithstanding.

The Theology Of Suds

The theology of suds: drowning the old man daily, preferably in a pail of lager.

Baptism and the Long Ending of Mark

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16a).

Among the Lutherans, this text is still appealed to, front and center, in support of baptism, as happened to an infant at the opening of a recent church service. This habit of citation is infelicitous, because the text comes from the long ending of Mark, which is not penned by the same person who wrote up through Mark 16:8. To go on quoting from this long ending simply will not do. It diverts the attention away from the topic at hand.

Whole academic careers have been made out of this problem of the ending of Mark. Suffice it to say that the internal and external evidence of the verses after vs. 8 have convinced all but the most stubborn defenders of the Textus Receptus that they were supplied, albeit from an early date. Why were they supplied? Because the want of an ending was felt. To end the Gospel in fear and in silence without a resurrection appearance in Galilee, as promised, just wouldn't do.

So what happened? There have been many proposals, of course, and we will probably never really know. Perhaps "Mark" never finished his work. But to suggest, as some have, that he intended to end there at vs. 8 for literary reasons just sounds crazy. Most of the New Testament was rightly dismissed as "Kleinliteratur" a long time ago. And that's being generous to Mark. I prefer to think his original got damaged, obviously at a very early date. The mucked up ending is just one of its many inadequacies which went on to be answered by Matthew, Luke and John.

As for texts to be read in support of baptism, especially infants, I nominate the stories in Acts 16, where Lydia, a seller of purple, believed and was baptized, "and her household" (vs. 15), and where the jailor was baptized, "he and all his, straightway" (vs. 33). Whether or not it is conceivable that infants can be inferred from the language, the concept of inclusiveness certainly shines forth, as in "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:14).