Homily of Pope Benedict on the Baptism of the Lord

Sunday, January 11, AD 2015

 

From 2013:

Dear brothers and sisters!
The joy arising from the celebration of Christmas finds its completion today in the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. To this joy is added another reason for those of us who are gathered here: in the Sacrament of Baptism that will soon be administered to these infants, the living and active presence of the Holy Spirit is manifested, enriching the Church with new children, enlivening and making them grow, and we cannot help but rejoice. I wish to extend a special greeting to you, dear parents and godparents, who today bear witness to your faith by requesting Baptism for these children, because they are regenerated to new life in Christ and become part of the community of believers.

 
The Gospel account of Jesus’ baptism, which we have heard today according to St Luke’s account, shows the path of abasement and humility that the Son of God freely chose in order to adhere to the plan of the Father, to be obedient to His loving will for mankind in all things, even to the sacrifice on the Cross. Having reached adulthood, Jesus begins His public ministry by going to the River Jordan to receive from John the baptism of repentance and conversion. What happens may appear paradoxical to our eyes. Does Jesus need repentance and conversion? Of course not. Yet He Who is without sin is placed among the sinners to be baptized, to fulfil this act of repentance; the Holy One of God joins those who recognize in themselves the need for forgiveness and ask God for the gift of conversion – that is, the grace to turn to Him with their whole heart, to be totally His. Jesus wills to put Himself on the side of sinners, by being in solidarity with them, expressing the nearness of God. Jesus shows solidarity with us, with our effort to convert, to leave behind our selfishness, to detach ourselves from our sins, saying to us that if we accept Him into our lives, He is able to raise us up and lead us the heights of God the Father. And this solidarity of Jesus is not, so to speak, a mere exercise of the mind and will. Jesus was really immersed in our human condition; He lived it to the utmost – although without sin – and in such a way that He understands weakness and fragility. Therefore He is moved to compassion; He chooses to “suffer with” men, to be penitent together with us. This is the work of God that Jesus wishes to accomplish: the divine mission to heal those who are wounded and to cure those who are sick, to take upon Himself the sin of the world.
What happens at the moment when Jesus was baptized by John? In the face of this humble act of love on the part of the Son of God, the heavens open and the Holy Spirit is visibly manifested in the form of a dove, while a voice from on high expresses the pleasure of the Father, Who recognizes the Only-begotten Son, the Beloved. It is a true manifestation of the Holy Trinity, which gives testimony to the divinity of Jesus, to His being the promised Messiah, the One whom God has sent to free His people, so that His people might be saved (cf. Is 40, 2). Thus is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that we heard in the first reading: the Lord God comes with power to destroy the works of sin and His arm exercises dominion to disarm the Evil one; but keep in mind that this arm is the arm extended on the Cross, and the power of Christ is the power of the One who suffers for us: this is the power of God, differing from the power of the world. Thus God comes in power to destroy sin. Jesus truly acts as the good shepherd, that feeds His flock and gathers it together so that it will not be scattered (cf. Is 40, 10-11), and offers His own life that it might live. It is through His redemptive death that man is freed from the dominion of sin and reconciled with the Father; and through His resurrection that man is saved from eternal death and is made victorious over the Evil one.
Dear brothers and sisters, what happens in Baptism, which will soon be administered to your children? What happens is this: they will be united in a profound way and forever with Jesus, immersed in the mystery of His power, that is, in the mystery of His death, which is the source of life, in order to share in His resurrection, to be reborn to new life. See the miracle that is repeated today for your children: receiving baptism, they are reborn as children of God, partakers of the filial relationship that Jesus has with the Father, able to turn to God and call upon Him with full trust and confidence: “Abba, Father!” On your children, too, the heavens are opened, and God says: “these are my children, with whom I am well pleased.” Inserted into this relationship and freed from original sin, they become living members of the unique body which is the Church, and are enabled to live fully their vocation to holiness, so as to inherit eternal life, obtained for us by the resurrection of Jesus.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Homily of Pope Benedict on the Baptism of the Lord

  • A Holy and fruitful servant of God…Pope Emeritus. Thank you Donald McClarey.

  • Beautiful lovely words from Benedict XVI to the parents and godparents about their faith and joy in passing it on!
    … jump to the controversial baptisms ministered by Pope Francis. I know that conversation has all died down now, but still Christian baptism of a child whose parents are not practicing Christians is a puzzle. It seems an ultimate disrespect of God and his sacraments.
    As if they are saying “I personally don’t have any faith in this ceremony, but for the sake of …” Sake of what?…of experiencing a public event? .. remembering Pascal’s wager?
    What makes the parents who don’t accept Christ bring their baby to this sacrament which claims to make an eternal indelible mark on the soul. Benedict said, “the seed that today is placed in their hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit, must always be fed by the Word of God and the Sacraments” Something is required here. what is bothering me is the disrespect for meaning.

    Such baptisms seem disrespectful to me, not because the parents were unwed, but because there is no apparent intention to live as good Christians, to get married, to cease gay lifestyle, to go to confession, to teach the child about the authority of the Church. If a single mom is rearing the child and has faith, fine and dandy. But if neither parent is living a Christian life it what is the point. Baptism is a door–the way is opened to heaven but there is a whole life to be lived before judgment.

  • When God Baptizes someone, who knows what God will do with that Baptized person?

    In spite of unbelieving parents, or whatever other obstacles the devil may throw in His way.

  • Jesus wanted us baptized. As priest, (lay priesthood) prophet, and king, adopted children of God, Christ’s brothers and sisters, we are baptized and share in the divinity of Christ, our brother and God, our Father.

PopeWatch: Baptize Those Babies

Wednesday, January 15, AD 2014

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Questions arose when the Pope baptized the baby of a couple civilly married.  Father Z, channeling canon lawyer Ed Peters, gives us the details:

The Holy Father baptized the baby of a couple who are only civilly married.

¡Vaya lío!

From the excellent Canon Law blog of Ed Peters… who is probably smart not to have an open combox.  Or .. maybe he just enjoys watching me moderate the discussion over here.   I dunno.

My emphases and comments.

How popes, baptism, marriage, and form, all come together

[…]

First, unlike the foot-washing episode last Holy Week (here and here), the pope’s actions today occasion no reason to think that canon or liturgical law has been—what’s the right word?—disregarded, for no canon or liturgical law forbids baptizing the babies of unmarried couples, etc. Indeed, Church law generally favors the administration of sacraments and, in the case of baptism, it requires only that there be “a founded hope” that the child will be raised Catholic (1983 CIC 868 § 1, 2º). A minister could certainly discern ‘founded hope’ for a Catholic upbringing under these circumstances and outsiders should not second-guess his decision. [And I guess that still applies when the minister is THE POPE.]

But here’s the rub: a minister could also arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion on these facts and, equally in accord with the very same Church law, he could delay the baptism. I know of many pastors who have reached this conclusion and who used the occasion of a request for a baby’s baptism to assist the parents toward undertaking their duties in a more responsible manner, including helping them to regularize their marriage status in the Church, resume attendance at Sunday Mass, participate fully in the sacraments, and so on. [All of which, I think, we will stipulate are good things.]

Now, if the pope’s action today was as reported (again, we don’t know that yet), [then… (here we go!) ] pastors who delay a baby’s baptism in order to help reactivate the Faith in the baby’s parents are going to have a harder time doing that as word gets out about the pope’s (apparently) different approach to the rite. Whether that was the message Francis intended to send is irrelevant to whether that is the message that he seems to have sent.

[NB] But, I suggest, the whole question of whether to baptize the baby of these parents surfaces a yet deeper question.

The only reason we describe this civilly-married Catholic couple as “unmarried” is because they apparently did not observe “canonical form” in marrying, that is, they did not marry ‘in the Church’ as required by 1983 CIC 1108, 1117. Now think about this: had two Protestants, two Jews, two Muslims, two Hindus, two Animists, two You-Name-Its, otherwise able to marry, expressed their matrimonial consent before a civil official, we Catholics would have regarded them as presumptively married. But, when two Catholics (actually, even if only one were Catholic, per 1983 CIC 1059) attempt marriage outside of canonical form, the Church regards them as not married at all. [Get that?] That’s a dramatic conclusion to reach based only on one’s (non)observance of an ecclesiastical law that is itself only a few hundred years old.

For more than 50 years, a quiet undercurrent of (if I may put it this way) solidly Catholic canonists and theologians has been questioning whether canonical form—a remedy that nearly all would agree has outlived the disease it was designed to cure (clandestine marriage)—should be still be required for Catholics or [Quaeritur…] whether the price of demanding the observance of canonical form has become too high for the pastoral good it might serve.

Canonical form is an immensely complex topic. It has huge ramifications in the Church and it has major reverberations in the world. I am not going to discuss those here. But if the upcoming Synod on the Family and Evangelization is looking for a topic that needs, in my opinion, some very, very careful reconsideration, that topic would be the future of canonical form for marriage among Catholics. There is still time to prep the question for synodal discussion.

All of this, you might wonder, from the baptism of a baby? Yes, because everything in the Church is connected to everything else. Eventually, if we get it right, it all comes together to form a magnificent tapestry of saving truth.

And he is eloquent, too.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to PopeWatch: Baptize Those Babies

  • Ok, so I said this about another one of your Posts, but this one takes the cake. I promote this PopeWatch as your best one to date.

    “..through Baptism the child receives grace and becomes a member of the Church. That is a pearl beyond price for any child. Whatever else may happen to that child in this Vale of tears, the Church did her best to give the child a grand start in life.”

    Beautiful!

  • I liked commenter mamajen’s suggestion that the pope should have offered to baptize the baby in a small, relatively private ceremony.
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/01/pope-francis-baptized-baby-of-couple-with-civil-marriage-only/#comment-446816
    Publicity seekers sometimes just want celebrities to pose with their family. Not saying that is the case with this particular couple, but a baptism away from the cameras would have been sufficient.

  • I pray this civilly-married couple asked for their child to be baptized as a first step for the child’s faith life and their ultimate return to Holy Mother Church.

  • Synchronicity: Having entered into a discussion of my own about Baptism, the question arose of the ways of Baptism: the Sacrament, blood or martyrdom, desire, and water and the Spirit, tears. Correct me if I have not got it right.
    This is one of the finest posts, for most of the posts are excellent and make my day.
    Spambot: Your name very well describes your comment on this post. Rejoice, celebrate. If you have ever heard the words of the Sacrament of Baptism you might know that all heaven rejoices. If the couple are using the Pope as photo opportunity, the Pope is using the photo opportunity to bring the Faith and the truth of Jesus Christ to the world. Fair is Fair.

  • Fair enough. Thank you, Mary.

  • I completely agree. I think that priests should baptise the children if those who ask for it unless there’s a serious reason not to. Canon Law should perhaps be reformed to stop communion for adults who support abortion instead.

  • Pingback: Francis, and the Coming Passion of the Church - BigPulpit.com
  • I would invite Dr Peters to reflect on the Scottish experience of clandestine marriages.

    The Scottish Reformation took place in 1560, three years before the Council of Trent, by the decree “Tametsi” made canonical form essential to the validity of marriage. Accordingly, the Pre-Tridentine law remained the law of Scotland until 1st July 1940. Marriage required no notice, no formality and no record of any kind. Lord Stair explains “It is not every consent to the married state that makes matrimony, but consent de præsenti, not a promise de futuro matrimonio. Marriage itself consists, not in the promise, but in the present consent, whereby they accept each other as husband and wife; whether that be by words expressly, or tacitly, by marital cohabitation or acknowledgment, or by natural commixtion, where there hath been a promise or espousals preceding; for therein is presumed a conjugal consent de præsenti [Institutions of the Law of Scotland 1681 (B i tit 4 sect 6)]

    The absence of public and easily accessible records, produced any number of applications to the courts for declarators of marriage or legitimacy, frequently after the death of one or both of the parties and 40 or 50 years after the event. This involved the tedious and expensive examination of witnesses and correspondence and the construction of doubtful expressions and ambiguous language, imperfectly remembered. Too often, the result was the nullity of a second de facto marriage and the bastardizing of issue. Not a few of these actions were little better than attempts at blackmail, to extort money from the surviving spouse or children.

  • you people drive me crazy….the child was baptized….so what if it was done in the Catholic Church?…so what if the couple was civilly married?….you people make to much of a big deal of things….what is most important is that the couple had their child and did not abort….why is it that you cant think positive about things???….

  • What post or comments were you reading J.A.C.?

  • Perphaps JAC is fed up with the attention this Baptism is getting elsewhere, and took out his frustration on this Blog.

    There has been much criticism elsewhere of the Pope “sending out the wrong message”- for baptising a baby- of all things!

    It seems someone who is inclined to be a reactionary, will try and find fault in every action of of the current Pope.

    You cant help negativity JAC. But you can direct your frustration in the right places…

  • Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19….At risk of betraying the paucity of my knowledge of Canon Law, it seems a relationship of legislation and rules adopted thereby should be at work. That is to say, the scripture is the legislation and the Canon Law comprise rules promulgated to implement the purpose of the scripture. Pope Francis gave the child, and secondarily the parents, a pearl of great price. Had he refused, what might be gained?

  • I think it’s great that the Pope baptized the baby into the Catholic Church. I commend the parents for initiating it. A good thing for all.

    I commend Pope Francis for an act of kindness and generosity toward the least among us.

Why Was Christ Baptized?

Sunday, January 12, AD 2014

 

Saint John Chrysostom explains to us why Christ was baptized when He had no need of it:

 

 

Hence it is evident, that He came to Jordan not for the forgiveness of sins and not for receiving the gifts of the Spirit, but so that some from those present then should not think that He came for repentance like others.  Listen to how John precluded this:  What he then spoke to the others then was, “Bear ye fruits worthy of repentance.” But listen to what he said to Him: “I have need to be baptised of Thee, and Thou art come to me?” (Matthew 3:8, 14). With these words he demonstrated, that Christ came to him not through that need with which people came, and that He was so far from the need to be baptised for this reason—so much more sublime and perfectly purer than Baptism itself. For whom was He baptised, if this was done not for repentance, nor for the remission of sins, nor for receiving the gifts of the Spirit? Through the other two reasons, of which the one the disciple speaks, and about the other He Himself spoke to John. Which reason of this baptism did John declare? Namely, that Christ should become known to the people, as Paul also mentions: “John therefore baptised with the baptism of repentance, so that through him they should believe on Him that cometh” (Acts 19:4).  This was the consequence of the baptism. If John had gone to the home of each and, standing at the door, had spoken out for Christ and said: “He is the Son of God,” such a testimony would have been suspicious, and this deed would have been extremely perplexing. So too, if he in advocating that Christ had gone into the synagogues and witnessed to Him, this testimony of his might be suspiciously fabricated. But when all the people thronged out from all the cities to Jordan and remained on the banks of the river, and when He Himself came to be baptised and received the testimony of the Father by a voice from above and by the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, then the testimony of John about Him was made beyond all questioning. And since he said: “and I knew Him not” (John 1:31), his testimony put forth is trustworthy. They were kindred after the flesh between themselves, “wherefore Elizabeth, thy kinswoman, hath also conceived a son”—said the Angel to Mary about the mother of John (Luke 1: 36).  If, however, the mothers were relatives, then obviously so also were their children.

Thus, since they were kinsmen, in order that it should not seem that John would testify concerning Christ because of kinship, the grace of the Spirit organised it such, that John spent all his early years in the wilderness, so that it should not seem that John had declared his testimony out of friendship or some similar reason. But John, as he was instructed of God, thus also announced about Him, wherein also he did say: “and I knew Him not.” From whence didst thou find out? “He, having sent me that sayeth to baptise with water, [is] the One [Who] did tell me” What did He tell thee? “Over Him thou shalt see the Spirit descending, like to a dove, and abiding over Him, that One is baptised by the Holy Spirit” (John 1:32-33). Dost thou see, that the Holy Spirit did not descend as in a first time then coming down upon Him, but in order to point out that preached by His inspiration—as though by a finger—it pointed Him out to all. For this reason He came to baptism.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Why Was Christ Baptized?

  • According to the calendar used in the Ordinary Form, today is the Baptism of the Lord. Jesus had no need of baptism, but chose to be baptized to establish the Sacrament for his apostles and those who would succeed them.

    In the Extraordinary Form today is the Feast of the Holy Family. We are made aware of the example set by Mary and Joseph to work to have a holy and happy family life. Such has never been an easy thing to accomplish, in the US or anywhere else, even in the days when Catholics in this nation had a “Catholic culture”. I find myself striving for this and often coming up short.

  • Pingback: Finding Our Identity in Christ - BigPulpit.com
  • Baptism makes a difference. Pope Francis said baptism changes us in his Wednesday teaching.
    He baptised the baby of an unmarried couple in the Sistine Chapel on this day celebrating the baptism of Jesus. I don’t know if he gave any pastoral counsel to these parents about getting married and living a good life passing on the faith in practice and by example.

  • excuse me- they were married but not in the Church-

  • “He baptized the baby of an unmarried couple in the Sistine Chapel” Pope Francis was taking back the child from the secular culture. That the parents wished to have their child baptized is very encouraging.

  • Yes I didn’t explain all that in my comment last night. I agree with the pope on this approach, given that there is exhortation / catechesis for these parents

  • I read somewhere that one of the reasons that Jesus chose to be baptized was so that in the future we could not say, in our pride and vanity, “Jesus wasn’t baptized, why should I be?”

  • I guess that was stated in other words by St. John Chrysostom……sorry.

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

Sunday, August 15, AD 2010

1. The most bountiful God, who is almighty, the plan of whose providence rests upon wisdom and love, tempers, in the secret purpose of his own mind, the sorrows of peoples and of individual men by means of joys that he interposes in their lives from time to time, in such a way that, under different conditions and in different ways, all things may work together unto good for those who love him.[1]

2. Now, just like the present age, our pontificate is weighed down by ever so many cares, anxieties, and troubles, by reason of very severe calamities that have taken place and by reason of the fact that many have strayed away from truth and virtue. Nevertheless, we are greatly consoled to see that, while the Catholic faith is being professed publicly and vigorously, piety toward the Virgin Mother of God is flourishing and daily growing more fervent, and that almost everywhere on earth it is showing indications of a better and holier life. Thus, while the Blessed Virgin is fulfilling in the most affectionate manner her maternal duties on behalf of those redeemed by the blood of Christ, the minds and the hearts of her children are being vigorously aroused to a more assiduous consideration of her prerogatives.

Continue reading...

One Response to MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

Father Zuhlsdorf Rants About Sand in Holy Water Fonts

Tuesday, March 2, AD 2010

The abuse of removing Holy Water from fonts during the season of Lent is a manifestation of the Spirit of Vatican II.  Well meaning priests misinterpreted or altogether made up their own discipline by removing Holy Water.  Father John Zuhlsdorf has followed this up during the course of Lent 2010 with his most recent posting clarifying why Holy Water should never be removed during the season of Lent except for Good Friday and Holy Saturday:

To all the priests out there still… unbelievably still putting sand in holy water fonts during Lent…

KNOCK IT OFF!

And if you go into a church where you see this sort of idiocy… for the love of God, DON’T bless yourself with SAND.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Father Zuhlsdorf Rants About Sand in Holy Water Fonts

  • Our parish moved the holy water to containers in urns in the aisles and filled the holy water fonts with vinegar.

  • Our “holy” water usually has mossy/seaweed-looking debris floating in it. There’s a penance for you.

  • I think Father’s idea of sneaking fast growing seeds and a little water into the “Holy Sand” is fabulous.

  • Must be a Northern Hemisphere thing.

    Never seen it of even heard of it Downunder.

    Why not a font full of salt? More appropriate than sand. 🙂

  • Don,

    You are very fortunate to be in a parish or diocese that has a low threshold of dissident Catholics.

    You are truly blessed!

    🙂

  • Sand in the holy water fount means rocks in the collection plate. I forget who suggested it , but think its quite brilliant. Also it’s in keeping with the Lenten theme. All the whackado personal symbolism has got to stop. Just contribute less money to buy all that sand.

  • I’ve never seen or heard of sand in the holy water fonts before. I’m glad we’re behind the times when it comes to this particular innovation.

    These days, I wouldn’t be surprised if they started filling the fonts with hand sanitizer. And considering that I have a rare talent for sitting next to the kid who wipes his nose on his hand or the lady with the bad cold who coughs and sneezes all the way through Mass and then wants to hold my hand during the Our Father, well, hey, a little hand sanitizer would be welcome…

  • Hehe, I now appreciate the literal holy-water-fountain (not as bad as it sounds…OK, the little wading-pool it pours into is kinda eyebrow-raising…) at my church.

  • I buried some rubber tarantulas in the sand that was placed in the holy water founts a few years ago. We haven’t seen sand since.