Vol 9 Issue 28 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
July 9, 2016 ~ St Maria Goretti, opn!

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (76)
2. Eighth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Seven Holy Brothers
4. Christ in the Home (50)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

Faithful Catholics are labeled intransigent, unwilling to change, ultraconservative. These appellations should be welcomed because they are signs of the Catholic Faith: unchanging, unable to be changed and absolute. Peter is the Rock that confirms the brethren in the Faith (cf. Luke 22:32). That which is built on sand is bound to fail: And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass (cf. Matt. 24:35 and Mark 13:31.) The whole doctrine of the indefectibility (a word never used today) is established upon that of the Church, as Christ founded it, remaining unchanged till the end of the world (i.e., the institution, or that which was built upon Peter and the other apostles:One Lord, one faith, one baptism (cf. Eph. 4:5.). That which supports indefectibility is infallibility—something also long dropped except by Faithful Catholics who acknowledge the Conciliar Church is not infallible and to point out that attribute (fallibility) within the Conciliar Church. The only thing the Conciliar Church does call upon is authority, but that authority has no foundation because the Conciliar Church itself does not have anything to base its authority except an empty title that has no substance. Is one to obey simply because the Conciliar Church says so? Or does one obey because when our Lord sent the seventy-two He said: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me the absolute, unchangeable Truth? (Cf. Luke 10:16.). Christ sent the Apostles to go into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creatureand anyone who believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16:15, 16.) reverts back to the apostolic faith the Apostles preached, not that of the modern world. Faithful Catholics want to hold on to that Faith knowing it is the only Faith and not just one among many to choose from and knowing that till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law (cf. Matt. 5:18.). This is what Saint Paul exhorts the Galatians: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (1:8.) and to the Corinthians: By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. (1 Cor. 15:2) This is why, in her wisdom, the Church rejected any attempt to even change the Mass or the Sacraments lest that Apostolic Faith be lost through interpretation and translation. It is this Faith Peter is to preserve and it is against this Rock that all heresies were shattered because these heresies were built on the changing ideas of the world that come and go with the tides of time.

As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

1917 Code of Canon Law

In continuing the listing of the Canons in the Code of Canon Law, the following Canons direct the clergy in preserving the sacredness and rites of the Sacrament of Baptism.

Canon 757

• 1. In solemn baptism water blessed for this purpose is to be used.
• 2. If the blessed water in the baptistery is so depleted that it seems insufficient, it can be mixed with other non-blessed water, even again, nevertheless remaining less than the original amount.
• 3. But if it has become corrupt or evaporated, or is in any other way deficient, the pastor shall pour new water into the fount, cleaned well and polished, and bless it according to the proper prescribed rites in his liturgical books.

Canon 758

Although baptism can be validly conferred by infusion, or by immersion, or by aspersion, the first or the second manner, or a mixture of both, whichever is in greater use, shall be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the various Churches.

Canon 759

• 1. In case of danger of death, baptism is licitly conferred privately; and if it is conferred by a minister who is neither a priest nor a deacon, he should do only those things necessary for the validity of baptism; if a priest or deacon is available, they should apply, if time allows, the baptismal norms that follow.
• 2. Outside of danger of death, the local Ordinary should not permit private baptism, unless it is a case of heretics who are being baptized under condition at an adult age.
• 3. The ceremonies that were omitted in the conferral of the baptism, for whatever reason, should be supplied in a church as soon as possible, except in cases described in § 2.

The Canon Law Digest (III: 302-3) then provides an exception to this Canon that was introduced by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on January 14, 1944 as recorded in the Acta Apostolica Sedes (36, 28).

The Use of Saliva in the Administration of Baptism 

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites: 

The care and vigilance with which the Catholic Church strives to observe the rites and ceremonies which are established by apostolic tradition and the decrees of the holy Fathers in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in the administration of the sacraments, is clear from her constant solicitude in publishing liturgical books and requiring them to be faithfully used everywhere. Moreover the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, cap. 13) issued a decree regarding these rites as follows: “If any one says that the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church, which are customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, can be contemned, or omitted at will by the ministers without sin, or changed into other new rites by any pastor of churches, let him be anathema.” Nevertheless, this constitutes no objection against the change of the rites and ceremonies by competent ecclesiastical authority, when a grave reason makes it advisable, lest the faithful become alienated from the reception of the sacraments. Now, since many Bishops, priests and missionaries have made it known that sometimes in the administration of baptism both to children and to adults, there is danger of contagion in touching the ears and nostrils of the person being baptized, with saliva from one’s own mouth, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, by command of His Holiness Pius XII, decreed that the rubric of the Roman Ritual, Tit. II, cap. II, n. 13, be revised as follows: “Postea sacerdos pollice accipit de saliva oris sui (quod omittitur quotiescumque rationabilis adest causa munditiei tuendae aut periculum morbi contrahendo vel propaganda) et tangit aures et nares infantis. . . .”; and ordered that it be inserted in future editions of the Roman Ritual. All things to the contrary notwithstanding. January 14, 1944.[AAS 36-28; S. C. Rit., Decree, 14 Jan., 1944.; Periodica, 33-252 (Hanssens)].

Canon 760

Whenever baptism is repeated under condition, the ceremonies, if indeed they were omitted in the first baptism, are supplied, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 759, § 3; but if they were applied in the first baptism, their repetition can be omitted in the second. 

Canon 761

Pastors should take care that a Christian name is given to those whom they baptize; but if they are not able to bring this about, they will add to the name given by the parents the name of some Saint and record both names in the book of baptisms.

CHAPTER 4

On sponsors

Canon 762

• 1. Out of the most ancient practice of the Church, no one should be solemnly baptized unless he has, insofar as possible, a sponsor.
• 2. Even in private baptism, a sponsor, if he can be had readily, should be used; if he is not available, let him be used in the supplemental ceremonies of baptism, although in this case he does not contract a spiritual relationship.

Canon 763

• 1. When baptism is repeated under condition, the same sponsor, insofar as this is possible, as might have been present the first time should be used; outside of this case a sponsor is not necessary in conditional baptism.
• 2. In a baptism repeated under condition, neither the sponsor who was present for the first baptism, nor the one used for the second, contracts a spiritual relationship, unless the same sponsor was used in both baptisms.

Canon 764

Only one patron, even if of a different sex from the one to be baptized, or a pair consisting of one male and one female, is to be admitted.

Canon 765

In order to be a patron, one must:

1.° Be baptized, have attained the use of reason, and have the intention of performing the office;

2.° Belong to no heretical or schismatic sect, not be under a condemnatory sentence or declaration of excommunication or be infamous by infamy of law or excluded from legitimate acts, or be a deposed or degraded cleric;

3.° Be neither the father, mother, or spouse of the one to be baptized;

4.° Be designated by the one to be baptized, or the parents, or guardians or, these being absent, the minister;

5.° Himself or through another physically hold or touch the one to be baptized in the act of baptism or immediately lift him up or receive him from the sacred font or from the hands of the one baptizing. 

Again, the Canon Law Digest (I, 338-44) provides this response from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments to an abuse that developed into a custom but was opposed to the 1917 Code of Canon Law: 

Reply and Instruction on Sponsors in Baptism

The Archbishop of Utrecht presented the following petition and questions to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments:

According to c. 765, 5°, in order that a person be a sponsor, it is required that he physically hold or touch the person to be baptized in the act of baptism, either personally or through a proxy, or that he at once lift him or take him up from the font or from the hands of the person baptizing; and according to c. 768 the sponsor contracts with the baptized person a spiritual relationship which, according to c. 1079, is a diriment impediment to marriage. Now, the practice among us is that the person who is to act as sponsor does not give any one an express mandate to represent him, but if he does not personally perform the functions of sponsor, the person who performs the baptism, or the parents of the person to be baptized, invite some other person to act in the place of the absent sponsor. Hence, the following questions are asked:

1. When things are done in this way does the absent sponsor contract the spiritual relationship, and does this give rise to the impediment of c. 1079? and if not:
2. What must the sponsor do in order to be able to act through a proxy; namely:
3. a) Must he give a certain person a special mandate?
4. b) Or is it sufficient that he give, either in writing or by word of mouth, a general mandate in favor of the person who shall be chosen by the parents or by the one who performs the baptism?
5. c) Or is it even sufficient that a general mandate be presumed in favor of any person?

Reply. I. If the sponsor, knowing of this custom, intends to conform to it, and if he is otherwise qualified to be a sponsor according to c. 765, in the affirtive.

1. This case is provided for in the answer to n. I. However, the custom referred to is to be reprobated: (1) because it should be a matter of undoubted certainty before the Church that the sponsor assumed his obligations, and with such a custom this remains uncertain and equivocal; (2) because the sponsor should assume his office with full knowledge and conscience of the obligations arising therefrom under c. 769, and this seems to be prevented by this custom, which reduces the office of sponsor to a mere meaningless ceremony; ( 3) because such a custom almost deprives the pastor of the opportunity to investigate to find out whether those conditions exist which according to cc. 765 and 766 are required in order that a person may validly and licitly be a sponsor.

In view of the above, let an Instruction be prepared for the Most Reverend Ordinaries of places.

Approved and confirmed by His Holiness, Pius XI, 29 July, 1925. 

Instruction 

From the replies given to the questions which were submitted, it appears what was the mind of the Most Reverend and Eminent Fathers in this matter.

For in the spiritual regeneration of man which is accomplished through baptism, according to a very ancient practice of the Church, sponsors are used, who are called by sacred writers susceptores, or sponsores, or fidejussores, and who are already mentioned in the first centuries of the Church’s history, for example, by Tertullian in De baptismo, cap. 18. For since it is by baptism that spiritual life begins, and by confirmation that it is perfected, the Church from an early period regarded the person baptizing or confirming as well as the godfather and godmother, as spiritual parents of the person who was baptized or confirmed; whence came the names patrinus and matrina. And this spiritual relationship was the reason that in the course of time the diriment impediment to marriage was introduced. And this was religiously adopted in the Code of Justinian (1. 26 Cod. V. 4), which gives this reason for it: “since nothing else is so apt to produce a paternal affection and a just prohibition of marriage as is this bond by which through the power of God, their souls have been joined together.” And according to the provisions of our present Code, by virtue of canons 768, 797, this institution of spiritual relationship remains substantially unchanged; although its effect is changed, because it is only the spiritual relationship arising from baptism that constitutes a diriment impediment to marriage (c. 1079), and this impediment is restricted to a narrower field.

The Church, according to the conditions existing in various periods, has seen fit to vary the scope of the impediment which is attached to spiritual relationship; nevertheless, the Decretals of the Roman Pontiffs and the Instructions issued by the Councils and Sacred Congregations are constant in testifying to the solicitude that the Church has always manifested that the office of sponsor be sacredly assumed and its obligations faithfully executed.

For we know by what close bonds of duty the sponsors and their godchildren are bound one to another. Pope Nicholas says: “A person should love as a father the one who took him from the holy font” (c. 1, C. XXX, q. 3). And the old sacred canons thus describe at length the obligations of godparents: “Above all, I warn you, women as well as men who have taken up children in baptism, remember that you have stood as sponsors before God for those whom you decided to take up from the sacred font. Hence, exhort them continually to keep chaste, to love justice, to cultivate charity. Above all keep the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer yourselves, and manifest them to these whom you have received as spiritual children” (c. 105, D. IV, de consecr.).

The Church has ceaselessly warned sponsors and declared to them that they are bound to see to the religious education of their godchildren, an obligation which the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in its Instruction of 9 Dec., 1745, to the Mission of Egypt (Collectanea, S. C. Prop. Fid., I, n. 355) derived from the origin and nature of spiritual parenthood, while it at the same time appealed to the doctrine of St. Thomas: “The spiritual regeneration which is effected by baptism is somewhat similar to carnal generation and whereas in carnal generation the little one newly born needs a nurse and tutor, so in spiritual generation it is necessary that there should be someone to play the part of nurse and tutor by instructing his spiritual child in those things which pertain to the faith and to Christian living” (III. q. 67, a. 7). So too in other Instructions of the same Sacred Congregation, as, for example, in that of January, 1763, to the Superior of the Mission of Tripoli, and in that of 15 Sept., 1869, to the Administrator Apostolic of Perth.

And as the Catechism of the Council of Trent seriously declares: “Let godparents everywhere always reflect that they are especially bound by this law” (part II, cap. II, n. 28), so too the Code in most weighty words teaches regarding the obligations of sponsors in baptism: “It is the duty of godparents, arising from the office they have undertaken, to regard their spiritual children as their perpetual charges, and in the things which regard the obligations of the Christian life, to see to it with all diligence that their godchildren may in all relations of life prove themselves such as they guaranteed they should be when they stood sponsor for them in the solemn ceremony” ( c. 7 69). And in the Roman Ritual, recently revised to conform to the Code, the duties of godparents are inculcated in the same words (De Patrinis, n. 38, tit. II, c. I).

As regards confirmation, the Roman Pontifical declares: “The Bishop announces to the man and woman sponsor that they must train their spiritual child to right living, that he shun evil and do good, and that they must teach him the Creed, the Our Father and Hail Mary, because this is their duty” (tit. De confirmandis). And the Code, c. 797: “The sponsor is obliged to regard the one confirmed as under his perpetual care, and to see to his religious education.”

Hence, the Church always forbade that those be admitted to the office of sponsors who are unwilling to perform its obligations faithfully, or who are unable to do so with care; and the Code distinctly enumerates the conditions that are required for the licit undertaking of the office; namely, for baptism, canons 765 and 766, which are cited in the Roman Ritual, l. c. nn, 35 and 36; and for confirmation, canons 795 and 796.

Now, as regards the questions submitted by the Most Reverend Archbishop of Utrecht, the provincial Synod of Utrecht, held in 1865, also gravely complains that the office of sponsor is too lightly assumed and too carelessly attended to, saying: “This office is too carelessly regarded in our day, and is scarcely thought of either by those who have to provide the sponsor or by the sponsors themselves.” And the Catechism of the Council of Trent gravely reproves this practice in these words: “This office is so carelessly regarded in the Church today that nothing is left of it but the bare name, and men seem not even to suspect that there is anything sacred about it” (1. c. n. 28). And this contempt of ecclesiastical discipline is in these days the more to be deplored, as the need of Christian education is greater.

For this reason the Eminent Fathers of this Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, while they replied to the questions submitted by saying, as above reported, that a spiritual relationship is contracted when the thing is done in the manner described in the question, yet they at the same time sharply reproved the aforesaid custom, and ordered that the reasons affecting the case be published, that is that an Instruction be added to the Reply, so that the serious nature of the office of sponsor and of its obligations may be carefully explained to the faithful, and may be better understood by them, especially as the Code has enacted detailed laws regarding the sponsor in baptism, lib. III, part I, tit. I, cap. IV, which are repeated in the Roman Ritual, and in confirmation, tit. II, cap. IV.

For just as no one should be admitted by his pastor to the office of sponsor, who is not qualified for it by the conditions which are required for the valid and licit assumption of this office, so too whenever in the conferring of the sacrament some one plays the part of sponsor, not in his own name but in the name and by the authority of some other certain and determinate person, it is necessary that this authority or the will of the person giving the authority be lawfully proved, to wit, by qualified witnesses or by a legitimate document in writing, unless the intention of the person giving the authority is, from other sources, known with certainty and beyond doubt to the pastor of the person who is being baptized or confirmed, so that the pastor may be able to investigate whether the designated sponsor has the qualifications required by law, and that there may be inscribed in the books wherein the canons require the conferring of the sacrament to be recorded the names both of the proxy and of the principal, who must, of course, know that he has undertaken the office of sponsor with the legal consequences thereof. These are the principal reasons why this Sacred Congregation declared that that custom was to be reprobated which, even though it be rightly observed, contains only a general and presumed authority to act as sponsor.

Finally, be it observed that the office of sponsor belongs by its nature to lay persons; hence, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, I. c. n. 26, pastors and sacred preachers are told that they must carefully see to it that the faithful understand the more important duties pertaining to that office. In the first place, they must explain the reason why sponsors are used, what their function is, what is required of them; and all this is especially to be explained in the very conferring of the sacrament, both to the faithful in general and to those in particular who undertake this function.

This especially is to be strongly insisted on, that it is the duty of sponsors, arising from the very nature of their office, to look to the Christian education of their spiritual child (cc. 769, 797, 1335) and to regard him as forever entitled to their care; whence it is clear how unbecoming it is for one who has offered himself as the tutor and guardian of another, after he has once taken him under his care and tutelage, to desert him until such time as he learns that he needs his help and protection (Catechism of the Council of Trent, I. c. n. 2 8). And this is to be insisted on more strongly in our times, when faith and morals are more in danger, and when parents themselves sometimes forgetting their grave obligations fail to care as they should for the Christian education of their children; and hence the services of the sponsors are to be rendered all the more diligently, “lest while we retain the name and external sign of that office, we banish from it that observance of Christian charity which is the reason for its institution and continuance” (Provincial Council of Prague, 1860).

While we recall these most weighty teachings, let us observe that this institution of the Church regarding sponsors is so noble, excellent, and efficacious, that we see in various nations the introduction of sponsorships or patronships, for instance, for children who are going to school or who have left school, in a word, for nearly all those needs for which parents or the civil authorities are unable adequately to provide. But today when faith is growing cold, this sacred sponsorship established of old by the Church is despised or made little of, while similar institutions in civil society are followed with enthusiasm. But this evil, so grave and so shameful to Christian manhood, must be entirely removed; there must be a return to obedience to the mind of Holy Mother Church; and it will not fail to conduce to the welfare of civil society as well. [AAS 18-43; S. C. Sacr., Instruction, 25 Nov., 1925.;Periodica, 15-42 (Vermeersch); J.P., 1926-12.]

But the spiritual relationship is only acknowledged within a true Catholic Baptism for the reason that, as said above, if there is no knowledge than one cannot be said to have contracted the relationship. Therefore, the following response was given regarding a marriage between two Episcopalians within also the context of Canon 1079 found in the Canon Law Digest (V, 511-512):

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message