Paper: Vatican "Prohibits" Lay Homilies and Lay Baptism in Germany
German bishops must not allow lay homilies and lay baptisms [introduced formally in Stuttgart and Essen]. Cardinal Roche sent this paper tiger to the presiding Bishop Bätzing (Katholisch.de, 30 March)…More
German bishops must not allow lay homilies and lay baptisms [introduced formally in Stuttgart and Essen].
Cardinal Roche sent this paper tiger to the presiding Bishop Bätzing (Katholisch.de, 30 March). Roche invokes a "liturgical right" that only allows clerics to preach during Eucharists. Why then has the Vatican allowed lay preaching in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for decades without complaint?
Lay baptisms are only possible if a cleric is not available within a month. Such circumstances "do not seem to exist in any diocese in the area of the German Bishops' Conference", says Paper Tiger-Roche. There are enough priests to cope with baptisms, which are declining in Germany, he added.
Roche also opined that an "ecumenical baptismal rite" published by some dioceses in 2021 was not approved and therefore must not be used.
The letter is a sham. For Roche knows as well as the German state bishops that it only serves to throw sand in the eyes of the conservatives.
Picture: Arthur Roche …More
Cardinal Roche sent this paper tiger to the presiding Bishop Bätzing (Katholisch.de, 30 March). Roche invokes a "liturgical right" that only allows clerics to preach during Eucharists. Why then has the Vatican allowed lay preaching in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for decades without complaint?
Lay baptisms are only possible if a cleric is not available within a month. Such circumstances "do not seem to exist in any diocese in the area of the German Bishops' Conference", says Paper Tiger-Roche. There are enough priests to cope with baptisms, which are declining in Germany, he added.
Roche also opined that an "ecumenical baptismal rite" published by some dioceses in 2021 was not approved and therefore must not be used.
The letter is a sham. For Roche knows as well as the German state bishops that it only serves to throw sand in the eyes of the conservatives.
Picture: Arthur Roche …More
- Report
Social networks
Change post
Remove post
My son baptized his third son when the local church was giving him the run-around. Eventually there was a church baptism, and the priest was not told that it had actually been done a few weeks before. Canon Law violation? In necessity, you do what you have to do.
John A Cassani
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@P. O'B The fact that your son baptized your grandson is far less problematic than that a priest was allowed to unwittingly re-baptize him. That is more than a violation of Canon Law; it violates an article of faith. I say this in charity. This is a situation that should be made known to the local pastor. Re-baptism is sacrilege. It would be different if the priest conditionally baptized your grandson …More
@P. O'B The fact that your son baptized your grandson is far less problematic than that a priest was allowed to unwittingly re-baptize him. That is more than a violation of Canon Law; it violates an article of faith. I say this in charity. This is a situation that should be made known to the local pastor. Re-baptism is sacrilege. It would be different if the priest conditionally baptized your grandson. Again, I say this in charity. God bless.
English Catholic
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@John A Cassani What you say is correct. I was conditionally baptised when I converted to Catholicism 40 years ago, but it was made crystal clear that the baptism was conditional, as my Anglican baptism may have been valid, although there were doubts. Those involved in this particular case should, for the good of their own souls, mention the matter to the priest in confession to get it cleared up …More
@John A Cassani What you say is correct. I was conditionally baptised when I converted to Catholicism 40 years ago, but it was made crystal clear that the baptism was conditional, as my Anglican baptism may have been valid, although there were doubts. Those involved in this particular case should, for the good of their own souls, mention the matter to the priest in confession to get it cleared up. It is correct that Canon Law stipulates that anyone can baptise another person in extremis situations, but as we don't know all the facts here, we cannot state that this instance constituted an in extremis situation. However, Canon Law makes it quite clear that a person cannot be baptised twice: "Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated. §2. If after completing a diligent inquiry a prudent doubt still exists whether the sacraments mentioned in §1were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally." Code of Canon Law - Book IV - Function of the Church (Cann. 834-878)
Tony Smith
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
They may out do the clergy, who don't seem to know what Christianity is.
