Jimmy Akin

(First, count to ten.)

A reader writes:

When the priest walks around the church incensing, do the people in the congregation make the Sign of the Cross when he gets to their area (they way they do when he sprinkles holy water)? I am unsure whether I should bow, make the Sign of the Cross, or what.

A check of the (current and previous) GIRM reveals little on this question. Here is the most significant discussion of what actually happens when things and people are incensed:

277. The priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the sign of the Cross, without saying anything.

Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed, except for the incensation of the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The following are incensed with three swings of the thurible: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the sacrifice of the Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Paschal Candle, the priest, and the people.

The following are incensed with two swings of the thurible: relics and images of the Saints exposed for public veneration. This should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, after the incensation of the altar.

The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the righthand side, then to the left.

The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible, then going on to incense the cross and the altar.

That’s it. It just says that the priest incenses the people with three swings of the censer. It doesn’t say for the people to do anything.

Neither does a check of the rubrics (so far as I could see) direct the people to do anything when they’re incensed. Checks of the BCL Newsletter and the Documents on the Liturgy (a standard collection) also turned up bupkis.

Thus, unless someone can show a binding document that says otherwise, it seems to me that the default option is for the people to do nothing.

That is definitely not the custom in some rites, however. In some Eastern rite services I’ve been to, it’s clearly the custom for folks to cross themselves.

Also, since the above text directs the incensor to make a profound bow (a bow of the body) before he incenses, it seems natural for folks to want to bow back to him. That’s a human politeness impulse, though. One might argue that in the act of incensing the people the incensor is being directed to show reverence to them on account of their sacredness to God (being made in the image of God). Since they are the recipient of this reverence and are not directed to reciprocate, one could argue that they ought not reciprocate at this point.

It seems to me that, although the default option seems to be to do nothing, Rome generally allows the laity a considerable amount of leeway in terms of their own gesture and posture (after all, we laity are peasants just in from slopping the pigs in the grand scheme of things; you can’t expect too much from us) and so (unless a binding document says otherwise) I don’t think Rome would mind if the faithful wanted to express their own piety by crossing themselves or bowing when they’re incensed.

It’s certainly better than forming a mob with pitchforks and torches.

(First, count to ten.)

A reader writes:

When the priest walks around the church incensing, do the people in the congregation make the Sign of the Cross when he gets to their area (they way they do when he sprinkles holy water)? I am unsure whether I should bow, make the Sign of the Cross, or what.

A check of the (current and previous) GIRM reveals little on this question. Here is the most significant discussion of what actually happens when things and people are incensed:

277. The priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the sign of the Cross, without saying anything.

Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed, except for the incensation of the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The following are incensed with three swings of the thurible: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the sacrifice of the Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Paschal Candle, the priest, and the people.

The following are incensed with two swings of the thurible: relics and images of the Saints exposed for public veneration. This should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, after the incensation of the altar.

The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the righthand side, then to the left.

The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible, then going on to incense the cross and the altar.

That’s it. It just says that the priest incenses the people with three swings of the censer. It doesn’t say for the people to do anything.

Neither does a check of the rubrics (so far as I could see) direct the people to do anything when they’re incensed. Checks of the BCL Newsletter and the Documents on the Liturgy (a standard collection) also turned up bupkis.

Thus, unless someone can show a binding document that says otherwise, it seems to me that the default option is for the people to do nothing.

That is definitely not the custom in some rites, however. In some Eastern rite services I’ve been to, it’s clearly the custom for folks to cross themselves.

Also, since the above text directs the incensor to make a profound bow (a bow of the body) before he incenses, it seems natural for folks to want to bow back to him. That’s a human politeness impulse, though. One might argue that in the act of incensing the people the incensor is being directed to show reverence to them on account of their sacredness to God (being made in the image of God). Since they are the recipient of this reverence and are not directed to reciprocate, one could argue that they ought not reciprocate at this point.

It seems to me that, although the default option seems to be to do nothing, Rome generally allows the laity a considerable amount of leeway in terms of their own gesture and posture (after all, we laity are peasants just in from slopping the pigs in the grand scheme of things; you can’t expect too much from us) and so (unless a binding document says otherwise) I don’t think Rome would mind if the faithful wanted to express their own piety by crossing themselves or bowing when they’re incensed.

It’s certainly better than forming a mob with pitchforks and torches.

A reader writes:

I was not raised as a Christian; I came to faith as a teenager and was baptized in an evangelical Presbyterian congregation. Recently, I began worshiping at an Orthodox mission church near me, and I have entered the catechumenate there. I have been told recently that to formally enter the Orthodox Church I may have to be baptized again, and this situation is the subject of my question.

The logic behind this (possible) requirement is that in many Protestant denominations these days the traditional Baptismal formula is often not followed and "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" (or some such wording) is used in place of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Apparently there is a list of denominations detailing which can be trusted to have administered valid baptisms and which not. I have not yet seen that document, but as the denomination I in which I was baptized was quite liberal, I’m very much afraid that it will be on the "black list."

The problem is that, since I was an adult when I was baptized, I know what was done and said and that the traditional formula was used. Furthermore, the minister who baptized me was very conservative and would never have gone in for that sort of thing.

I don’t know how those objections would be received in the event that my old denomination is on the "do not trust" list. I’m trying to work out to myself what my response should be in the event that I am required to undergo another baptism. As I know that my baptism at age 18 was valid, should I dig in my heels over this? Or would submitting myself to the Church’s judgment be the right thing to do?

I know that you cannot answer this question from the perspective of Orthodox Church law or tradition. I know also that the bottom line answer for you would most likely be "you should be becoming Catholic, not Orthodox," and that might make the whole question moot in your mind.

Well, yes, you should become Catholic rather than Orthodox, but no that does not make the question moot.

You know that the correct formula was used in your baptism your first baptism was valid, and it would be an insult to the work that the Holy Spirit did in your baptism to rebaptize you. If they insist on an unconditional rebaptism then you would be morally obliged to refuse on the grounds that it would be a sacrilege.

That being said, it seems to me that you could explore two options (besides becoming Catholic):

1. Explain to them that you have a memory of the baptism and that you know the correct formula was used (possibly supplemented by a written statement from the pastor who did it or anothr eye-witness) and see if that will either nix the proposal or get it modified into the section option:
2. Get them to administer a conditional baptism (for example, one using the formula "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "). Conditional baptisms are not sacrilege because they are only baptisms if the person is not already baptized. They show the willingness of all involved to make sure that the person is validly baptized and they confess our own limitations in determining prior validity together with our will to do what God wants done.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

I was not raised as a Christian; I came to faith as a teenager and was baptized in an evangelical Presbyterian congregation. Recently, I began worshiping at an Orthodox mission church near me, and I have entered the catechumenate there. I have been told recently that to formally enter the Orthodox Church I may have to be baptized again, and this situation is the subject of my question.

The logic behind this (possible) requirement is that in many Protestant denominations these days the traditional Baptismal formula is often not followed and "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" (or some such wording) is used in place of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Apparently there is a list of denominations detailing which can be trusted to have administered valid baptisms and which not. I have not yet seen that document, but as the denomination I in which I was baptized was quite liberal, I’m very much afraid that it will be on the "black list."

The problem is that, since I was an adult when I was baptized, I know what was done and said and that the traditional formula was used. Furthermore, the minister who baptized me was very conservative and would never have gone in for that sort of thing.

I don’t know how those objections would be received in the event that my old denomination is on the "do not trust" list. I’m trying to work out to myself what my response should be in the event that I am required to undergo another baptism. As I know that my baptism at age 18 was valid, should I dig in my heels over this? Or would submitting myself to the Church’s judgment be the right thing to do?

I know that you cannot answer this question from the perspective of Orthodox Church law or tradition. I know also that the bottom line answer for you would most likely be "you should be becoming Catholic, not Orthodox," and that might make the whole question moot in your mind.

Well, yes, you should become Catholic rather than Orthodox, but no that does not make the question moot.

You know that the correct formula was used in your baptism your first baptism was valid, and it would be an insult to the work that the Holy Spirit did in your baptism to rebaptize you. If they insist on an unconditional rebaptism then you would be morally obliged to refuse on the grounds that it would be a sacrilege.

That being said, it seems to me that you could explore two options (besides becoming Catholic):

1. Explain to them that you have a memory of the baptism and that you know the correct formula was used (possibly supplemented by a written statement from the pastor who did it or anothr eye-witness) and see if that will either nix the proposal or get it modified into the section option:
2. Get them to administer a conditional baptism (for example, one using the formula "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "). Conditional baptisms are not sacrilege because they are only baptisms if the person is not already baptized. They show the willingness of all involved to make sure that the person is validly baptized and they confess our own limitations in determining prior validity together with our will to do what God wants done.

Hope this helps!

20