The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of Baptism, and the deadly sin of gluttony. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

By John Gregory

Dogmatic Subject: Baptism: Its Nature and Institution.—And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2).—Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just (Matthew 20: 4).

 

Definition of Baptism

 

With regard to the definition of Baptism although many can be given from sacred writers, nevertheless that which may be gathered from the words of our Lord recorded in John, and of the Apostle to the Ephesians, appears the most appropriate and suitable. Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; (John 3: 5) and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 26) Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.  By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. (Ephesians 2: 3) For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1: 12, 13)

 

Constituent Elements of Baptism

 

But define Baptism as we may, the faithful are to be informed that this Sacrament consists of ablution, accompanied necessarily, according to the institution of our Lord, by certain solemn words.  This is the uniform doctrine of the holy Fathers, as is proved by the following most explicit testimony of Saint Augustine: The word is joined to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.

 

It is all the more necessary to impress this on the minds of the faithful lest they fall into the common error of thinking that the baptismal water, preserved in the sacred font, constitutes the Sacrament.  The Sacrament of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord.

 

Matter of Baptism

 

Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism.  The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain.

 

Form of Baptism

 

Pastors should teach, in clear, unambiguous language, intelligible to every capacity, that the true and essential form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  For so it was delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in Saint Matthew He gave to His Apostles the command: Going, . . . teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)

 

By the word baptizing, the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understood that the form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister; and this takes place when he pronounces the words, I baptize thee.

 

Besides the minister of the Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of Baptism should be mentioned.  The pronoun thee, and the distinctive names of the Divine Persons are therefore added.  Thus the complete form of the Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom Saint John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1: 33) but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together.  By saying, however, in the name, not in the names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead.  The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

 

ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL WORDS OF THE FORM

 

It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

 

Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is included in the word baptizo (I baptize).  Nay more, the Greek Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the pronoun altogether.  The form universally used in the Greek Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  It appears, however, from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

 

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

 

If at any time the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, (Acts 2: 38; 8: 2) we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power.  If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

 

And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. [Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 61) says that Christians were baptized in the name of the entire Trinity] Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptized in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.

 

Administration of Baptism

 

What has been said on the matter and form, which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, will be found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful; but as in the administration of the Sacrament the legitimate manner of ablution should also be observed, pastors should teach the doctrine of this point also.

 

They should briefly explain that, according to the common custom and practice of the Church, Baptism may be administered in three ways,—by immersion, infusion or aspersion.

 

Whichever of these rites be observed, we must believe that Baptism is rightly administered.  For in Baptism water is used to signify the spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account Baptism is called by the Apostle a laver. (Ephesians 5: 26)  Now this ablution is not more really accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which Peter baptized, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three thousand souls. (Acts 2: 41)

 

It is a matter of indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice.  For it is evident from the Epistle of Saint Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way.  The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

 

Pastors should be particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who baptizes is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not before or after, but when performing the ablution.

 

Institution of Baptism

 

When these things have been explained, it will also be expedient to teach and remind the faithful that, in common with the other Sacraments, Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord.  On this subject the pastor should frequently teach and point out that there are two different periods of time which relate to Baptism—one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception.

 

BAPTISM INSTITUTED AT CHRIST’S BAPTISM

 

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying.  Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Augustine testify that to water was there imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.  In another place Saint Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.  And again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.

 

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion.  The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

 

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding.  Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

 

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

 

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt.  Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28: 19) the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

 

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; (1 Peter 1: 3) and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 25, 26) By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord.  Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5) refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

 

The effects of the sacrament are remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, character of Christian, opening the gates of heaven. (Catechism of Trent – COT)

 

After Baptism we should like to keep our souls unspotted.  Sins of the flesh, the reason why most souls go to Hell, are the result, in no small part by:

 

THE VICE OF GLUTTONY

 

Everyone that striveth for the master, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one (1 Corinthians 9: 25)

 

Intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery. (Jeremias 5: 7) An overloaded stomach begets impurity.  This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. (Luke 21: 34) Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury. (Ephesians 5: 18) (COT p. 437)

 

MORTIFICATION

 

The body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity.  By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested.  In connection with this subject Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.  And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence. (1 Corinthians 5: 27; Romans 13: 14) (COT p. 439)

 

FASTING AND ALMSDEEDS SHOULD BE JOINED TO PRAYER

 

To prayer let us unite fasting and almsdeeds.  Fasting is most intimately connected with prayer.  For the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what prayer means.

 

Almsdeeds have also an intimate connection with prayer.  For what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help to his neighbor and brother?  How can he, whose heart is devoid of charity, demand assistance from God unless, while imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to grant him the virtue of charity?

 

This triple remedy was, therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation.  For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor, or injure ourselves.  The wrath of God we appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting.  Each of these remedies, it is true, is applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those three which we have specially mentioned.  (COT p. 500)

 

The COT teaches us that the Our Father is also a remedy against gluttony:

 

WE ASK THAT WE MAY NOT YIELD TO OUR OWN INORDINATE DESIRES

 

When we say, Thy will be done, we express our detestation of the works of the flesh, of which the Apostle writes: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, etc.; (Galatians 5: 19) if you live according to the flesh you shall die. (Romans 8: 13) We also beg of God not to suffer us to yield to the suggestions of sensual appetite, of our lusts, of our infirmities, but to govern our will by His will.

 

The sensualist, whose every thought and care is absorbed in the transient things of this world, is estranged from the will of God.  Borne along by the tide of passion, he indulges his licentious appetites.  In this gratification he places all his happiness, and considers that man happy who obtains whatever he desires.  We, on the contrary, beseech God in the language of the Apostle that we make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence, (Romans 13: 14) but that His will be done.

 

We are not easily induced to entreat God not to satisfy our inordinate desires.  This disposition of soul is difficult of attainment, and by offering such a prayer we seem in some sort to hate ourselves.  To those who are slaves to the flesh such conduct appears folly; but be it ours cheerfully to incur the imputation of folly for the sake of Christ who has said: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. (Matthew 16: 24; Luke 9: 23) This is especially so since we know that it is much better to desire what is right and just, than to obtain what is opposed to reason and religion and to the laws of God.  Unquestionably the condition of the man who attains the gratification of his rash and inordinate desires is less enviable than that of him who does not obtain the object of his pious prayers. (COT p. 534 - 535)

 

To reinforce and expand up this I should like to quote from A Companion to the Summa, Volume 3, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.:

 

Roots of freedom: Proximate and remote source

We have missed the intimate interrelation between purity and humanity.  In some mysterious way we have overlooked the obvious fact that since human life is a reasonable life and human activity is a rational activity, of course human passion is passion under reason.  The name of the supreme passion under reason is its defense in the name of purely physical considerations is itself an attack on the humanity and freedom of man. 

Internal and external

The key to the whole situation is spirituality.  The proximate sources of man’s freedom are his soul, his intellect and his will behind them stands the sole possible author of spiritual substance, the infinitely powerful God.  Because a man is spiritual he has liberty; because he is spiritual that liberty has eternal significance.  That is, the use or the abuse of liberty is for eternity, for the spiritual, as incorruptible, exists for eternal ends.

A man’s will or intellect cannot be handcuffed.  As long as he remains a spiritual being with reason in control, he can never be enslaved.  He possesses an internal liberty much more important than any external, civic freedom: an emperor, after all, can be a slave to himself, while a slave can be completely master of himself, can be most free.  External liberty is as perilous a thing as a heart worn on one’s sleeve; it can be lost, whereas internal liberty can only be surrendered.  No force, intrigue, trickery can take it away from us.  And this is precisely the liberty over which purity maintains such a jealous guard.

It is unfortunate that men and women today are inclined to look upon the fight for purity as a little abstract and academic.   Like so many moral questions, it apparently has no immediate pertinence to individual life.  A man instantly and vigorously resists an attack on his property, his children, his wife; but an attack on virtue is different.  Here he considers himself off to one side, to a spectator not greatly interested in the winner of the argument. The thing is important, for these questions have a profound personal significance for every individual.  The drastic consequences of modern attacks on the spiritual soul, the intellect and the will of man, the bitter attacks on God, are much more serious than any physical attack on a man himself, his family or his property.  This attack on the realm of the spiritual is not so much a matter of beating a man to the ground as of disemboweling him.

Surely what threatens the spiritual and rational in a man threatens his freedom, for it is precisely upon that spiritual foundation that he builds his claim to freedom.  When the body, the sense appetite, and the world of the present take precedence over the soul, the will and the world of eternity, man is no longer free. He is a slave; that is, he is no longer a man.

In this material of temperance there are three serious threats to the sovereignty of man’s reason.  The threats are extremely serious because the material is so extremely necessary that nature attaches to it the greatest sense rewards, lest its primary ends be overlooked or neglected.  To take care of the possible sorties against his reason from this material, man is equipped with a garrison of virtues specially equipped for this kind of enemy and this type of warfare.  There are only three in that garrison—abstinence, sobriety and chastity—but their fighting qualities more than make up for their numbers.

Still these three are not enemies of man’s nature, not even of his sensitive nature.  They can be rightly understood only when they are seen as guardians and protectors of man and his nature.  Their presence in a man has exactly the effect of a well-disciplined garrison in a stronghold of restless subjects.  They prevent mob-rule within a man and turn the violently restless energies of his passions to the common good of the man himself.  Understand, this is not a question of using these subjects as a tyrannous master might use slaves merely for his own end.  Reason is not working against the passions; it allows, indeed, insists upon their attainment of their own proper ends.  Those proper ends of the passions, with their rich contributions to the welfare of the whole man, are defeated and trampled underfoot by the rioting of the mob of undisciplined passions.

The garrison protecting freedom:

From the abuse of food—abstinence; Its nature

If it were a virtue merely to abstain from food, then by implication, the taking of food would be sinful.  It is this sort of absurdity that is somehow wrapped up in the defense and attack of the modern negative “protectors” of liberty.  A man can and does refuse food; perhaps because he has no appetite or is starving himself to death.  Neither case involves a question of abstinence; the whole point of the virtue is the note of reason it insists upon in the use of food.  The man who gives up coffee as a penance, even though it makes life miserable for his family, is not an abstinent man; neither is the ascetical tyro who stays up night after night praying only to fall asleep over his work during the day.  These things are unreasonable so they cannot be virtuous.  The virtue of abstinence is in operation only when the bounds of reason are carefully observed; its precise work is to restrain man’s use of food to reasonable limits.

Its act—fasting; Purposes

Abstinence holds a man back from abusing food.  Fasting, an act of abstinence, goes a step further and holds a man back from what might very well be eaten without any abuse whatever.  Again we must insist that this is not a condemnation of food.  Eating enough certainly cannot be anything but a cause of joy, except perhaps to a grateful beggar to whom the experience is astonishing in its novelty.  To refuse to eat what is no more than enough, if it is to be virtuous must be reasonable; and it can be reasonable only because it is aimed at ends higher than its immediate purpose.

If I have a healthy appetite for a bit of steak, an entirely reasonable amount in entirely reasonable circumstances, yet I refuse to eat it, then I have some explaining to do.  If the refusal was for no reason whatever it would be an act of insanity; if it proceeded from a conviction that food itself is evil and to be avoided, then it would be vicious; but if it is for some higher end, like training the soul or satisfying for sins, it might well be virtuous.

We get a realistically concrete view of the higher ends of fasting by looking back to the first week of any Lent.  After a few days of highly successful mortification, we have a definite sense of satisfaction, of pride in ourselves, of highly human accomplishment.  You see, we have been fully in control.  That is the really solid basis of that sense of satisfaction and superiority over our old selves.  We are being super-eminently human and we know it.  We are experiencing something of the joy of being human.

To recognize those high ends in detail no more is necessary than to see them. By fasting we let our appetites know beyond any doubt that reason is the head of this household; and by that very fact, we give our appetites invaluable practice in subjection.  This practice is important, for it is always important for a man to be rational, to have his reason in control.  Going up a step higher, fasting is clearly a kind of restitution.  Every sin is a stolen pleasure, for every sin is at least an overindulgence of will; fasting surrenders a legitimate pleasure, thus both satisfying for the debt of sin and impressing us with the true nature of sin.  We cannot fast very long and not realize that no one ever gets anything out of sin, not even a pickpocket or a bank robber; everything that apparently comes out of it must be given back, even though that restitution take all of an eternity.

Looking at fasting on a still higher plane, it is not hard to see in it a disposition to contemplation.  In the old public school schedule, a singing class was held immediately after lunch.  The schedule was good, however bad the singing might be; for surely it would not be as bad as the thinking turned out on a full stomach.  Whatever the physical background may be, psychologically it is sure that full satisfaction of the appetite for food makes the mind dull; it is apt to act like a puppy, crawl off to some warm corner and go to sleep.  Thus monastic fasts are not idle gestures of melancholy or of distaste for the pleasures of sense.  The primary business of monastic life is always contemplation, and fasting is an excellent disposition for it.  The evening meal in a Dominican House of Studies is usually light; from September to Easter it is extraordinarily light.  It is not coincidence that the most fruitful periods of study are the morning (after a positively feather-weight breakfast) and the evening or, as far as that goes, the rest of the night.  There may be elements of discomfort; but, after all, a monastery does not exist for comfort but for contemplation.  The very discomfort becomes eminently reasonable as a means to the higher ends of truth.

Let us summarize the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on vice of gluttony with the help of our friend Monsignor Glenn in his “A Tour of the Summa”.

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, bit it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon, virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not as great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

5. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking. It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much. Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. (A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Glenn)

 

Conclusion

Let us clear our minds, and dull our inclination to sin through prayer, fasting and almsdeeds.