| DIALOGUES WITH PAUL RICH | |
| The "sbattezzo 'make sense?
| |
|
| |
| The other day there was a gazebo in the center city of an association of atheists and agnostics at the urging sbattezzo, accompanying the invitation with a sentence controversy over the power of the Vatican. Personally, this type of request leaves me puzzled because I think that no Christian church can issue a certificate di sbattezzo, sia perché ogni chiesa cristiana attribuisce un grande valore al Battesimo, sia perché non si può tornare indietro e far finta che un atto compiuto non sia stato compiuto: un battesimo amministrato è stato amministrato, qualunque sia il pensiero odierno del battezzato. Per fare un paragone, se un bambino è stato vaccinato, non può poi da adulto svaccinarsi, anche se da adulto ritiene che sia una pratica medica inutile o nociva. Quindi tutto quello che una chiesa può fare al riguardo è prendere atto che quella persona, divenuta adulta, non desidera essere considerato membro della chiesa in cui ha ricevuto il battesimo: nelle nostre chiese abbiamo un elenco dei membri di chiesa, e suppongo che qualcosa del genere esista in other churches. On the same theme, a few months ago, I read the news on Reform of the baptism of an adult in an evangelical church (I think Baptist) which referred to the difficulties previously encountered by this brother, who had undertaken a sbattezzo procedure. I confess I was particularly surprised by this request by an evangelical believer: one thing is the fact sbattezzo asked by an atheist, another thing is the sbattezzo asked by a Christian. The problem here, I think, arises from the recognition of baptism conducted by other churches. In this regard, I would ask: Which Christian churches recognize the baptism given any other? This award, if any, is very old or traditional? The churches of the Reformation (except Baptists) believe baptism Catholic (or Orthodox)? And if it becomes an Evangelical Catholic (or Orthodox) is renamed? Colonna Romano Roberta - Mestre
This letter is from an issue, that of the so-called "sbattezzo," which in the end, as we shall see, is not a problem, but only a figure of speech, and comes in second part to raise what it is a genuine problem: the recognition of the baptism in churches other than their own.
Why "sbattezzo" not a problem? For the simple reason that, as our reader points out, "sbattezzarsi 'is physically impossible, as is" svaccinarsi "(led by her example is fitting, though, of course, the baptism has nothing to do with vaccination!), as it is impossible to delete a promotion or a rejection at school, or a marriage contract (even if it is wrecked), and so on. Nothing that has happened in our lives can be deleted: it can possibly be corrected and improved, or sorrow, or regret, or disliked, or removed, but can not be deleted. Can at best be forgotten that is erased from our memory, but not the reality. So "sbattezzarsi" you can not. "Sbattezzarsi" is just a saying. To say what? To say that you want to break all ties with the Church and in particular, in our country, with the Catholic Church. Because according to Catholic theology belongs to the Church through baptism, "sbattezzarsi 'shall not leave the church and will have nothing to do with him. So "I sbattezzo 'means' I do not recognize the baptism that I was imposed without my knowledge and without my consent, so I deny any value to the act, I declare it null, for me it is as if it were not happened, I take off my dress baptized and returns it, which I do not belong in any way. " But while you can opt out by the records of a church, you can not delete your baptism, even ripping (at least ideally) the page on which the baptism was registered.
But let him "sbattezzo ', that is - is clear - a perfectly legitimate choice (even if made badly), but that is not a problem, and we come to baptism, but that is a major problem in theological and ecumenical not only of our time, but of all (or most) Church history. Everything is an unsolved problem, so as to constitute one of the main causes of division among Christians. There is not agreement among themselves or the meaning of baptism, nor the age to receive it, nor on the forms to celebrate. We often hear in ecumenical circles, "We are all, as Christians, united in baptism." It is a half truth the whole truth is that baptism unites us and divides us at the same time. We are united because all the churches and Christians baptize you can say "united in baptism" in the sense that they are all baptized. But baptism divides us is because, as I just said, the churches in different forms and interpretations of baptism are different and, in some cases, difficult to reconcile, sia perché non tutte le chiese riconoscono come valido il battesimo celebrato in chiese diverse dalla propria, mentre ce ne sono altre che riconoscono una sola forma di battesimo, indipendentemente dalla chiesa che lo celebra. Quindi il battesimo ci unisce e ci divide: è uno dei tanti paradossi che accompagnano la nostra esistenza come Chiese divise. Neppure ci può molto consolare il fatto che il problema non è nuovo, è antico. Si pose già nella Chiesa dei primi secoli, in due modalità e in due contesti diversi. Nel contesto della «grande Chiesa» (quella maggioritaria, vittoriosa sull’arianesimo, sul donatismo e su altre tendenze giudicate eterodosse) si discuteva se il battesimo amministrato in una comunità considered heretical, but still Christian, were to be repeated when the 'heretic' entered the "great church", or were to be considered valid, and therefore not repeated. In the context instead of the Donatist Church denied that it was valid baptism administered by a priest of the "Great Church" but judged unworthy (because during the prosecution had concealed or denied, at least outwardly, faith), and therefore who, called by that priest in the "great church", go to the Donatist Church was renamed.
But against the repetition of baptism are pronounced, with a civil law reported in Code of Justinian, Emperors Honorius and Theodosius decreed that even the death penalty for a person already baptized who renamed! We do not know, to tell the truth, if and how this law has been used in practice. However, it can be assumed to have contributed, at least as a threat to deter anyone from the practice of re-baptism and to make infant baptism the only form of baptism practiced in the Christian European society (except, of course, that in the case of people Gentiles who became Christians). The reaction came in the sixteenth century Anabaptist movement, which, in defiance of an ancient tradition, denies any value to the baptism of children, and then renamed as the people who had been baptized and adhered to their communities. The Anabaptists were severely persecuted by all the "established churches", including those of the Reformation. Many were put to death: their martyrdom was one of the greatest of Christian history. rating on the Anabaptists of the Reformation was heavy and, as regards the question of baptism, unfair in the sense that the Reformers were not able to recognize the reasons for the position of the Evangelical Anabaptists, even though their theology of baptism could and can be questioned. There were of course other issues that explain the negative evaluation of the Reformation sull'Anabattismo in particular was what we call the withdrawal policy of the Anabaptists, which causes them to deny any involvement in the management of public affairs, which they considered "outside the perfection of Christ", and therefore, according to them, compromising for a Christian. The Reformers criticized, I think rightly, that attitude and saw nell'anabattismo - to borrow a phrase of Luther - a "new monasticism." But that's another question, from what we are dealing with: the Anabaptists who practiced baptism - that of the believers - not just those who were not yet baptized, but also on those who were baptized as children. Baptist churches have taken over a partire dalla fine del Cinquecento, l’idea e la prassi anabattista, che si è poi affermata nei secoli successivi anche in altre Chiese dell’evangelismo moderno.
Ora la nostra lettrice nota giustamente che alla base del battesimo praticato su un adulto battezzato da bambino c’è il mancato riconoscimento di questo battesimo, e si pone di conseguenza una serie di domande, a cominciare da questa: quali Chiese riconoscono il battesimo impartito dalle altre? Ecco la risposta. La Chiesa cattolica, ufficialmente, riconosce tutti i battesimi, dovunque e da chiunque celebrati (quindi anche quelli celebrati nelle Chiese evangeliche, di qualunque tipo), purché lo siano «con acqua e nel nome del Padre, the Son and the Holy Spirit. " This position is supported by the Anglican Communion and Lutheran Churches, Reformed (the Waldensian Church is one of them) and Methodist. The Orthodox churches but are reluctant to recognize baptisms outside the Orthodox Churches. The Baptist Churches, Adventist, Brothers, Pentecostals of all trends, and others - that is, all the churches that practice baptism of believers only - do not recognize the baptism of children, from any church (Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) to be celebrated . For these churches who are baptized as a child is not baptized. This does not mean it is not Christian, it means that - according to these churches - is not baptized a Christian. Another paradox, because if you can be Christian without being baptized, it means that baptism is not constitutive of being a Christian. The problem, in short, exists and is serious enough. It is clear that the churches that practice baptism of believers only, and recognize only one as the only valid form of Christian baptism, have a theology of baptism other than that of the Churches also practice infant baptism. The diversity is such that an agreement had previously been impossible. The situation seemed to be locked when in 2002 an English Baptist theologian, Paul S. Fiddes, published an essay in which baptism is seen not so much with event itself concluded, ma come processo che in realtà dura tutta la vita ed è messo in moto dal «Sì» divino della grazia (battesimo dei bambini), ricevuto e confessato dal «Sì» umano della fede (battesimo dei credenti). Entrambi hanno il loro senso e possono coesistere nella comunità cristiana, interpellandosi a vicenda. La proposta di Fiddes può, mi sembra, sbloccare la situazione e aiutarci a superare una divisione secolare che riguarda proprio il fondamento della vita cristiana. Tratto dalla rubrica Dialoghi con Paolo Ricca del settimanale Riforma del 28 gennaio 2011 www.riforma.it www.chiesavaldese.org | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment