« Roman Irony | Main | Brave Roe World »
January 18, 2008
Help of the Helpless
Sometimes a picture can be breathtakingly theological. This one is for me, at least, showing Fr. Patrick Reardon of All Saints Orthodox Church lifting a newly-baptized infant above the altar, as is the custom, while the congregation sings Simeon's Nunc Dimittis. The icon, of course, shows Christus Victor trampling down the gates of hell and grasping the hand of Adam, raising him up from the dead. Notice the baby's raised arm! Helpless Adam, helpless Man, helpless infant: but now our "eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel." Alleluia.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 09:52 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54fe4fe6b8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Help of the Helpless:
Comments
A beautiful picture. I didn't even catch on my first glimpse that the baby wasn't part of the background image.
Posted by: Nick | Jan 18, 2008 10:12:05 AM
Well, actually, the rite that is being perfomed is that of the Churching of Mother and Child. This taking of the baby around the altar comes at the end of that rite. It is preparatory for baptism inasmuch as it effectively serves as the entry of the child into the catechumanate, but it is not itself part of the baptism.
Posted by: Fr. Joseph Bittle | Jan 18, 2008 10:13:00 AM
Stunning.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Jan 18, 2008 10:40:47 AM
God's blessings on this child and his family.
Posted by: JRM | Jan 18, 2008 11:57:47 AM
Beautiful. Just one question: Is this in the Byzantine or the Western rite?
Posted by: Mark | Jan 18, 2008 1:10:06 PM
A wonderful picture. I've saved a copy, if you don't mind.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Jan 18, 2008 2:00:49 PM
Mark, Fr. Reardon is Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic.
Posted by: Daniel Crandall | Jan 18, 2008 2:32:27 PM
Daniel,
It's possible that Mark was asking if Fr. Patrick happened to be Western Rite Orthodox.
Mark,
All Saints is a Byzantine parish of the Antiochian Archdiocese.
Posted by: Fr. David Lewis | Jan 18, 2008 3:24:31 PM
Daniel, Mark's question is valid. Several Orthodox jurisdictions have Western Rite parishes, the largest grouping of such being in Fr. Reardon's own Antiochian Archdiocese. Still, Fr. Reardon himself is Eastern (Byzantine) Rite.
Posted by: Fr. Joseph Bittle | Jan 18, 2008 3:28:45 PM
Very beautiful, Father Reardon. Thanks for sharing the photo with us. It makes me wish I could witness the rite in person.
Posted by: GL | Jan 18, 2008 4:00:10 PM
The traditional 1549-1928 editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer have an office for "The Churching of Women." The so-called 1979 BCP excised it for being "sexist."
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 18, 2008 4:06:17 PM
"The so-called 1979 BCP excised it for being "sexist." "
These days we need a rite for the Churching of Men.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 18, 2008 4:22:47 PM
James,
One advantage of having become an Anglican Catholic directly, without having been an Episcopalian, is that I am ignorant of the full extent of the damage TEC has done to the prayer book, since I don't know anything about any American versions after 1928.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 18, 2008 4:44:59 PM
Really nice Anastasis in the background. Who was the iconographer?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 18, 2008 7:15:01 PM
While the '79 BCP did remove the term "the Churching of Women," it does include a service for thanksgiving after the birth of a child, which in my understanding is basically what the Churching of Women amounts to, particularly when read through the lens of a society with high infant and maternal mortality.
The aspect of it being the admission of an infant to the catechumenate is interesting and a part of such a service I hadn't thought about before. Wonderful picture, thank you for sharing it!
Posted by: Jody+ | Jan 18, 2008 11:52:36 PM
Jody,
Your understanding is incorrect. The 1979 BCP (so-called) service and the 1928 BCP service have little to do with one another theologically. The 1928 service text offers no thanks for the birth of the child per se (and only a brief concluding prayer for the child based on Luke 2:52); it is entirely directed to offering thanks to God for the mother having survived the perils of childbirth. Theologically, its initial root is Genesis 3:16a, with those perils as a consequence of Eve's original sin (which is why the 1979 book rejected it.) It consists of a brief statement of purpose, a portion of Psalm 116 (verses 1-2, 4-5, 12-14), the Lord's Prayer, a set of versicles and responses, a collect, and the closing prayer. The 1979 BCP has almost entirely different texts, with the usual array of multiple options, and is centered instead upon offering thanks for the child. (Nothing wrong with that; but there is something wrong with removing the original theological context of sin for which thanks must be offered for safe delivery in childbirth.) The only elements resembling the old service are elective uses of Psalm 116 (this time verses 1-2, 5, and 11-14) and an abridged version of the old collect.
You do not indicate your sex, but if you are a woman, please be advised that your assertion of ministerial "ordination" (indicated by the + after your name) is not recognized by most folsk on this site, including myself.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 19, 2008 6:27:05 AM
Actually, in the Byzantine Rite, the "churching" of the child is not about the mother at all, has little to do with thanksgiving for the mother's survival (at least not directly), and nothing at all to do with purification. Rather, it is a "presentation" of the child, a dedication of the child, to the Lord, in the same way that Mary and Joseph presented Jesus at the Temple. The singing of the Canticle of Simeon, the prayers that are applied at the time (which, interestingly, are very similar to those used in the rite of ordination) all point to the purpose, the meaning of the sacrament being the "ordination" of the child into Christ's royal priesthood. Of old, it is my understanding that the rite was applied only for sons, but that is probably the case only in the most traditionalist parishes, at least in this country.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good generic summary of the order of the rite:
Churching of the Child
Then, if the infant has already been baptized, he performs the churching of the child; if not, he does the churching immediately after the baptism.
Taking up the child, the priest lifts it up making the Sign of the Cross with the child before the doors of the temple, saying: "The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
He then carries the child into the center of the nave, as he says, "I will go into Thy House. I will worship toward Thy Holy Temple in fear of Thee." Stopping in the center, he says, "The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. In the midst of the congregation I will sing praises unto Thee."
He then walks up to the Iconostasis, and stopping in front of the Holy Doors, he says, "The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
If the child is a girl, he places it on the soleas in front of the icon of the Theotokos (Mother of God); if it is a boy, he carried it into the sanctuary and around the back of the Holy Table (altar) and out again onto the soleas.
He then chants the Nunc Dimittis and says a special apolysis (dismissal), after which he blesses the child with the Sign of the Cross on it forehead, mouth and heart, and returns it to its mother.
On the other hand, there is a separate rite for the "churching" of women, which is about thanksgiving. It is not clear to me whether this was an early rite of the Church, or whether it evolved later (e.g., in the middle-to-late Byzantine period. There are definite overtones of ritual purity to the rite, which would be alien to the early Fathers such as Chrysostom, who understood such taboos to be antithetical to the freedom from the Law expressed by Paul. Certainly, Chrysostom at least would have worried about the intimations of "judaizing" inherent in the ritual. On the other hand, by the medieval period, concerns about purity were coming back into vogue--witness the increasing clericalization of the liturgy, the desire to keep the Blessed Sacrament out of "profane" hands, the increasing use of "secret" or silent prayers, etc. Here is Wikipedia's summation of the Churching of Women:
Churching of the Woman
On the fortieth day after childbirth, the mother is brought to the temple to be churched; that is to say, to receive a blessing as she begins attending church and receiving the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) once again. The child (if it has survived) is brought by the mother, who has already been cleansed and washed, accompanied by the intended sponsors (Godparents) who will stand at the child's Baptism. They all stand together in the narthex (the entranceway) before the doors of the nave of the temple, facing east. The priest blesses them and says prayers for the woman and the child, giving thanks for their wellbeing and asking God's grace and blessings upon them.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 19, 2008 8:16:40 AM
Mr. Altena,
Please know that you and others would not consider Jody's ordination invalid on the basis of his gender. And a bit more charity might go a long way.
Posted by: justin | Jan 19, 2008 1:42:37 PM
Justin,
I wrote "if you are a woman" with respect to the invalidity of ordination. And, as the editos of Touchstone can tell you unanimously, there was nothing uncharitable in that. It is a simple matter of truth.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 19, 2008 2:13:20 PM
James,
Was your remark germane to the topic of this thread? Was it a necessary bit of information that you thought Jody+ might not be aware of and needed to know? Was your remark hospitable? Were you implying that he should not sign his name in that way unless he also states his gender? Please forgive my imposition of gentle advice, and for spending more time on this unrelated topic.
Posted by: justin | Jan 19, 2008 3:40:24 PM
What's most wonderful for me about the picture's composition is that the child by proximity shares in the fate of sinful Adam but also has arm extended to share in Christ's rescue of the old man.
The rescue is available to him or her already in infancy by virtue of the priest's Gospel ministration. A beautiful picture.
Posted by: bonobo | Jan 20, 2008 12:57:27 PM
>>Was your remark germane to the topic of this thread? Was it a necessary bit of information that you thought Jody+ might not be aware of and needed to know? Was your remark hospitable? Were you implying that he should not sign his name in that way unless he also states his gender? Please forgive my imposition of gentle advice, and for spending more time on this unrelated topic.<<
Justin,
I just think James, being unsure of the gender of the individual, was trying to head off any unprofitable debate on this subject. I come from a denomimation which practices WO and have come to accept that the bulk of folks on this site don't believe in it, and, indeed, don't believe any of the clergy in my denominate have a valid ordination. And I am pretty well OK with that state of affairs.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jan 20, 2008 2:24:25 PM
>>>I just think James, being unsure of the gender of the individual, was trying to head off any unprofitable debate on this subject. I come from a denomimation which practices WO and have come to accept that the bulk of folks on this site don't believe in it, and, indeed, don't believe any of the clergy in my denominate have a valid ordination. And I am pretty well OK with that state of affairs.<<<
Aside from which, to claim one's clerical status as a source of authority, without revealing whence that clerical status came, is a form of cheating. In addition, I have a very real animus against people who put "+" after their OWN names. One does not commemorate one's self, nor toot one's own horn.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 20, 2008 4:00:02 PM
I thought it was just a convention to indicate one was a priest, not tooting one's own horn. On the Anglican Catholic listserv that I subscribe to, all the priests put "+" after their names. It's something that's helpful to know.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Jan 20, 2008 4:12:52 PM
Those who do so usually preface their names with "Father". However, in my neck of the woods, while one may place a + after the name of someone to whom one is referring, a priest will seldom do so. The only people I know who do so regularly are bishops, and then, they usually omit both their title and their last name, and only as part of their signature, not as part of the typescript. Thus, a letter may be signed (by hand) "Makarios +", and underneath would be typed, "Most Reverend Makarios, Bishop of some flyblown village in Turkey".
Therefore, to use the + after a first name--and a diminutive of a first name at that--without any intimation of title or affiliation, can at best be called an affectation.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 20, 2008 4:38:03 PM
Here's a real affectation, expressive of an interest in object-oriented computer languages... :)
Posted by: bonobo++ | Jan 20, 2008 6:50:39 PM
He must increase, and I must be decremented.
(That's two minus signs.)
Posted by: mac- - | Jan 20, 2008 7:40:21 PM
Very properly post-decremented too! Let it be done according to all syntactic righteousness.
Posted by: bonobo | Jan 20, 2008 7:55:19 PM
Thanks to Stuart and Bobby for their responses on my behalf to Justin. Judy is right about Anglo-Catholic usage of the "+" after a name by priests. It's not necessarily an affectation, but it can be unclear, which was one reason for my initial observation.
Perhaps Justin has no experience with the phenomenon, but quite often priestesses use this device as an initial way of asserting their legitimacy on traditionalist sites. It is something that, from experience, needs to be headed off at the pass immediately. And when someone comes along doing so, whose sex cannot be readily determined, and furthermore does so in promoting a theologically liberal revisionist position -- that there is no substantive difference between the 1928 and so-called 1979 BCPs on such a point, and reduces the rationale behind the former to a purely secular phenomenon (mortality in childbirth rather than the effects of original sin) -- then warning flares shoot off in droves.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 21, 2008 8:04:40 AM
I agree with Mr. Altena that it would be of interest to know the sex of a person purporting to be a member of the Christian clergy, especially in those branches of it that retain the offices of bishop, priest and deacon, as Jody did by using a symbol for the priesthood. The Bible and historic practice are both quite clear about the qualifications of persons holding such offices, and to know that a woman has departed from them by the assertion of such an office for herself is germane in interpreting her subsequent comments about Christian doctrine and practice.
But it also has occurred to me that the assertion of such an office via the use of a clerical title, which I have done here since my ordination to the diaconate in 2003, can easily be seen as an attempt to assert some special support for my views as opposed to the views of the laity. I strongly believe that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and thus I will remove my title from my subsequent postings.
Posted by: Michael D. Harmon | Jan 21, 2008 11:40:02 AM
I think a bit more charity is in order, as well as a bit more fidelity to the original topic. Though I share the sentiments James expressed in his initial post, now seems to be a good time to let the matter drop. A quick click on the link to Fr. Jody's blog would have sorted out any confusion. Let's not hasten to take things in ways they weren't intended.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Jan 21, 2008 11:50:40 AM
>>But it also has occurred to me that the assertion of such an office via the use of a clerical title, which I have done here since my ordination to the diaconate in 2003, can easily be seen as an attempt to assert some special support for my views as opposed to the views of the laity. I strongly believe that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and thus I will remove my title from my subsequent postings.<<
I, for one, don't generally take clerical titles as tacit appeals to one's authority, but I can understand why one might, especially a casual reader not long acquainted with a writer's thoughts an style. To those possessing such titles, I recommend weighing the possibility of this misreading against the advantage of readers knowing one's position. Of course, as more varied sorts of people begin claiming such titles, I can see how this latter function might become diminished by dilution (I take this to be James' objection in this particular case). In short, I can see the logic behind a position such as Dcn. Harmon's, though it's a shame that it's come to such a pass.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Jan 21, 2008 12:02:48 PM
Father Joseph Bittle is incorrect in his identification of the rite. The official service book of the Antiochian Archdiocese specifically forbids taking a child around the altar prior to Baptism.
Posted by: Patrick Henry Reardon | Jan 21, 2008 1:06:43 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004