Catholic Symbolism in Baptism - Final Post

Parents, Priest, Godparents, and Child at baptism

Catholicism has many forms of symbolism ranging from the colors found throughout a church to the actions performed by priests and members of the congregation. I am going to focus on a specific sacrament and take an in depth look at the meanings behind the actions and objects used during the ceremony. Many of the symbolic items seen in a Baptism would hold similar meanings throughout the normal masses of the Catholic Church, in other words, these symbols are important within the Baptism and other masses. The sacrament of Baptism holds much significance for a newborn within the Catholic Church. 

Baptismal Gown

The first thing that may strike you when you attend a Catholic Baptism is the color white. The gown the baby wears is usually a white garment made of a fairly high quality fabric. The Church is usually decorated with white banners and flowers. The candles around the church are white. The white seen all around the church signifies the purity given through Baptism, the purity from sin. Babies are seen to be clean of sin because they cannot really make their own choices regarding sin. The color white is seen throughout other times of the year in the church. It is quite prevalent during the Christmas season especially.

Child being Baptized

The person is baptized in water in a baptismal font. The water is seen to wash away the “stain of Original Sin.” The water is poured over the baby’s head three times, representing the Trinity. The priest says “I now baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Each splash of water is calling on a different part of the Trinity to rid the baby of Original Sin. During the baptism, water also symbolizes the Paschal Mystery, a central teaching of the Catholic Church. The water shows the person being baptized as dying to sin and being resurrected to new life in God.

Baptismal Candle

During a Catholic Baptism the godparents of the child light candles signifying the presence of the Holy Spirit. The flame is a sign that the person being baptized will be a light to the world and will spread the message of God to others.

Chrism

Another symbol seen in the Baptism is the oil put on the baby’s forehead. It is drawn on in the shape of a cross. This oil, officially called Chrism, is a symbol that ties the person being baptized to Jesus. He was the anointed one, and the Chrism represents his presence in the child’s life. The oil represents the person’s connection to Jesus’ roles during his time. It gives the person the right to share in the sacrament of Eucharist (37).

Casket Pall

Many of these symbols are seen at Catholic funerals as well as baptisms. While you would typically think of black when you think of death, a Catholic Church is decorated in white for a funeral. The presence of these symbols at the sacraments typically held at the beginning and the end of a person’s life mean that they are similar stages in life in the Catholic Church. Baptism is usually experienced at the beginning of your earthly life. A funeral is held at the end of that life but also the beginning of your eternal life with God. These symbols link birth and death as beginnings of life instead of an ending.

Catholicism is fairly similar to other Christian religions, but differs from most other religions in our world today. Rastafarians, for example, do not get baptized. This may be due to the act that the Rastafari movement is less organized than Catholicism. Where Rastafari is a religion that is firmly rooted in a specific location, it has no formal hierarchy of leaders that universally guide all Rastafarians. It is much more centered on individual groups and communities. There is no requirement to be accepted into these communities. The gathering where Rastas reason, are not controlled by strict guidelines of form and prerequisites, but the Catholic Church is different. In order to participate fully in the Catholic Church you should be baptized. The Eucharist is not supposed to be received by those who are not baptized within the Catholic Church. This sounds far more exclusive than the Rastas way of life.

Baptismal Font

Mormons also get baptized, but what is the difference between the two religion’s forms of Baptism? Not much. The Mormons are debatably Christian. They believe you must be baptized in order to reach Heaven after death. It is necessary to be saved. Catholics tends to be a bit more lenient by saying a person can go to heaven without being baptized within their church.

These symbols are important in Catholicism. They connect the new member of the church to Christ in more ways than one. The symbols bring deeper meanings regarding Jesus' ministry and teachings into the ceremony of Baptism. The ceremony itself brings the baptized person into the Church and allows them to receive the Eucharist which is one of the most important parts of the faith. The symbols bring together the actions and feelings of the Church.

So you may be wondering why I would focus this post specifically on Baptism. I chose this because many people who are not Catholic may find themselves attending a Catholic Baptism. I wanted to spend my time really focusing on a sacrament that many people outside of the Church may see. It’s is a way the church is seen by others. It’s not a website, but it is something that represents the Church to the outside world. Another reason I chose Baptism is because it is the beginning of one’s journey through the Catholic Church. It is a vital part of the Catholic faith. 

Together at Baptism By Joseph E. Payne, C.S.C.

The Book of Abraham

 The Book of Abraham lacks credibility as a book that should be a Mormon text. I do not think it really lends much substance to the Mormon ideas found in The Book of Mormon. Actually I do not see how it is seen to have anything to do with anything Mormon except for the fact that Joseph Smith “translated” this from some papyrus that happened to be in his possession.

Facsimile shows damage 

I do not think The Book of Abraham is from 2000 BC because the papyrus this was written on had to be in really rough shape when Smith acquired them after almost 4000 years of their being written. This makes me think the narrative would not be so fluid. There had to be pieces missing from the paper or irreparable damage. The story 

would not have the ability to transition in a semi-coherent fashion.

Other pieces of this story that do not make sense are the pictures, or facsimiles, on the paper. They have probably been misinterpreted. I think scholars in Egyptian history and hieroglyphics would probably read these differently than Joseph Smith has presented them. I just do not think the bird on the first facsimile is supposed to be an angel from God.

The Book of Abraham is a book translated by Joseph Smith that does not advance his message in my opinion. I think it is just an odd attempt at showing his followers that he truly is a prophet because he can translate “ancient Egyptian texts.” These texts had to be fairly roughed up, meaning they could not have told a fluid story effectively. I have much doubt about Smith’s translation being legitimate. 

Searching for Credibility

I have a really hard time believing that much of the stories told in The Book of Mormon really happened personally. I think Joseph Smith just took things from the Bible and made them fit into his religion. He did not really come up with any new revelations, but instead chose which parts he liked and compiled them into a book. When he did this he had to establish a hint of credibility. He does not really achieve this even though he attempts to at the end with the testimonies, but he takes some of the symbols from the Bible and incorporates them into the stories of Nephi and the other books found in The Book of Mormon. 

            

I think Joseph Smith Jr. took symbolism from the Bible and incorporated it into his translation of The Book of Mormon. Three and twelve are numbers that are given symbolic significance throughout the whole Bible. These show up when the period of darkness is described. It last for roughly three tumultuous days. When Nephi is told to baptize those who have repented, eleven others are also told (486). This means a total of twelve people are given the power to baptize followers in the name of Jesus. I think Smith took the number of apostles and found a way to incorporate it into his narrative.

Joseph Smith took elements from the Bible, specifically the symbolism of numbers, and used them to give credibility to his translation of The Book of Mormon. Personally, I think this is a poor way to bring about a base of credibility.

Jesus' Visit

                  If I was a Mormon in the early 1800’s I would feel like my religion was legitimized by The Book of Mormon. The Third Book of Nephi indicates that the Mormon people are the chosen people of God. Jesus visits them in America and says to Nephi and eleven others, “I have chosen [you] to minister unto this people” (491). This book portrays their founding father, Nephi, to be hand selected by God to lead this group of people. This entire book gives their religion the legitimacy searched for by all religions.

               

                 This book gives all power to the Mormons. It also justifies mistreatment of the Native Americans around 1830. The Native Americans were seen as savage people who were not civilized or organized. Persecution of Native Americans was in full swing right before Joseph Smith Jr.’s edition of The Book of Mormon was published. It does not necessarily condone the persecution, but the early chapters of the book may have contributed to ill feelings towards the Native Americans.

                Jesus’ choosing of the Mormon followers as his chosen people allows them to think they are better than those who are not God’s chosen people. The Lamanites would have been seen as inferior because Jesus did not appear to them, but instead to the Nephites. This event can be seen as a contributing factor in the feelings that led to the mistreatment of a misunderstood group of people. 

Religion Divides, It Does Not Unify

The Baha’i faith is one that believes in unity among nations and all peoples. This is a big dream that will probably never come true. Our world is far too immersed in turmoil for everyone to hug it out and be best friends. Religion brings about much conflict itself. Throughout history it has been a dividing force rather than a unifying one. The Crusades, the turmoil in Israel, Jihad; all of these can be seen as battles relating directly to religion. It’s not that the religions necessarily call for the violence, but that it’s hard for people to distinguish between religion and politics when the control of the country is tightly entwined with the religion in the country. Even now in the United States, religion has an impact on controversies that affect our public policy. Religion and God are used as reasons why same sex marriage should not be legalized or why abortion should be illegal.

I do not think this is what was intended by any religion when it was found and first organized. It just happens that people take religion and use it to fight political battles for them. If Baha’u’llah’s message was correct and the founders of the major prophesized religions were all “Manifestations of God,” then this conflict was never intended by the original God (201). I just think this teaching of worldwide unity will never happen, and if it did it would not come about through a religion.

Compassion Is Universal

I believe Baha’u’llah would agree with the idea of showing compassion towards other people. He may not clearly state this in words, but he shows his thoughts of this through his actions towards other people he encounters. Baha’u’llah taught his followers the “Golden Rule” by showing them compassion rather than telling them how to act towards one another. I think the Baha’i would find compassion to be a component of their religion, like every other religion. The video had followers of Islam in it, and Baha’i came from that so I would think compassion would be a part of their beliefs as well.

An example of Baha’u’llah’s actions being the bases of his teachings on compassion that sticks out to me would be when he stood up for his fellow Babis and was bastinadoed for them (21). Baha’u’llah stepped in for multiple Babis when they were threatened. He took the beating instead of allowing them to be beaten. He showed his love for others by taking on their pain and allowing them to be free from the torment they were undergoing. He saw the need of another person and came to their aid.

Baha’u’llah would agree with the theory of compassion. He at least showed what compassion was throughout his life and people followed his example in their own life. Compassion is a universal theme in religions, and the Baha’i faith seems to be no different. 

I Shot the Establishment

Rastafari: From Outcasts to Culture Bearers describes how people who are part of the early Rastafarian movement believe they have been oppressed by white people and the establishment of the Jamaican government. These beliefs are evident throughout their symbols and music. The videos we watched in class show that Rastafarians felt oppressed by the government, especially the video of Bob Marley. He talks about how ganja is “just a plant,” and the authoritative figures in the community do not allow it to be used. Bob Marley’s song “I Shot the Sheriff,” is supposed to be about justice, but I see it as a cry against oppression and a snub at the establishment.

The song is about someone who shot the sheriff and is wrongly accused of shooting the deputy. He claims he shot the sheriff out of self-defense. The entire song has a theme that the police have it out for the narrator of the song.

“All of a sudden I saw Sheriff John Brown. Aiming to shoot me down.”

The police have it out for him because he grows ganja and they prohibit the growth and possession of it.

“Every time I plant a seed, He said kill it before it grow”

The fact that he does something that is notably prohibited, and has been explicitly warned against shows his disdain for “The Man.” Bob Marley and the entire Rastafari movement was constantly working to snub the Jamaican government through living the lives they believed to be the best path back to the promised land.

The Meanings of Colors

The symbol I am choosing to discuss in this post are the colors that Rastafarians use throughout their lives to symbolize different origins of their movement. In the video the houses are painted red, green, and yellow. There is also a flag outside of the houses made of black, green, and yellow. Each color has significance in the culture of Rastafarians. According to Rastafari: From Outcasts to Culture Bearers, the green, red, and gold are to signify Ethiopia, which is a huge part of the Rastafarian movement because it is the “Promised Land.” The color black signifies the color of most Rastafarian followers’ skin. This is especially significant because the movement was founded as a source of rebellion against the establishment of Jamaican government.

*Go to 0:16 (I could not figure out how to do the still shot)

I chose to talk about the colors seen in Rastafarian communes because it relates the movement to other religions. Christianity uses colors as symbols as I would guess other religions do as well. Colors can indicate a certain season of the year, purity, or evil. These associations to color also seep into our general culture. The color red can be a representation of the blood of martyrs in both Rastafari and Catholicism.

The meanings of the colors for Rastafarians seem to be an easy association because this is how other religions or movements would use the colors. The painting of the houses is an odd use of the colors, but the colors are used in so many different ways that it is not a striking utilization. 

Kebra Negast = Not True?

The Kebra Negast is an interesting text relaying the story of the Queen of Sheba and her son Menyelak. It tells the story of how the Ark of the Covenant was stolen from King Solomon’s Temple and taken to Ethiopia with Menyelek. It follows the Bible’s version of events until it leaves King Solomon’s Temple. According to the Bible the Ark was discovered missing and never found again. How can this story claim to explain where this missing piece of history is located? How could we be sure the Kebra Negast is telling the truth?

I do not think the Kebra Negast is telling the truth. I think the Ark is lost forever, never to be found again. The fact that so many places claim to have the Ark makes me think that it is impossible for it to be in any of these places. Another thing that makes me think it is not in Ethiopia is the fact that no one has seen it there. Sure, the members of the church that claim to possess it believe that it is there, but no one else has seen the Ark.

The Ark is an important symbol in Christianity. In relation to Religious Studies this is something that is a focal point of Christianity in Ethiopia. Through what we have read and what we have discussed in class, the Ark seems to be a central staple to the strength of their religious culture.  

Thou Shall Not Judge

As I read Book Three of On Christian Teaching I found Augustine’s point about lust and love to be interesting and pertinent to our lives today. In a society that sells sex, lust is everywhere. Do we, as a whole, have the ability to read the Bible without letting our own wants and desires be justified through the texts?

Our culture is vastly different than the culture Augustine was a part of. When reading this book, I understood him to be saying that times change and so some things within the Bible become obsolete or non-applicable. Well when do we know when this is the case? I think it is a matter of follow the basic laws the Bible lays out. Not everyone is Christian, but for those who are, what are the important teachings we should follow? I think the love of God and the love of neighbor are good starting points. I think that a basic rule that should be followed by all religions and all people in general is “Thou shall not judge.” I know it is not an actual commandment, but it is a good rule to follow. People who do not follow a religion and even those who do, do things we may not agree with, but it is not our place to judge anyone’s choices.

So to answer the question in the intro to my post, it does not matter. It is not for us to determine whether people’s intentions are good or corrupt. Whether they are made from love or lust. It is for a higher power to decide if the person believes in a higher power.

How to Study the Bible

I think the two ideas are similar to each other. Augustine is even mentioned in the article written by J. Todd Billings. Both methods of interpreting the Bible advise having a thorough base of knowledge when reading the Bible. They both say to be cautious in misinterpreting the Bible while reading it. Augustine and Billings both argue the same point essentially, but they differ in a slight way.

While reading Augustine I get the impression of an individual study. His advice is based on one person reading the Bible and not misinterpreting the words found there. He basically says to make sure your background for understanding is complete so as not to misconstrue the meaning of the text. He seems to believe having the historical context in which these were written is important to apprehend the true meaning of each passage. Augustine makes it clear that a reader must be able to decipher idioms from truly meaningful passages of texts I understood all of this advice to be aimed at an individual reader rather than an entire group of readers. Billings stressed that study of the Bible must be studied within a group. It is a main point of his expressed within the article.

I think this is a positive way to approach the Bible because it helps someone to understand the origins of the passages. It makes helps someone to understand the Bible whether they have super strong faith or no faith at all. Appreciation can spring from knowledge instead of faith. 

Universal Advice

After reading many palms throughout the Book of Psalms I wonder why all of them are contained within one book. They have various themes, and the themes are sometimes in opposition to each other. There is war, prophesy, worship, and morals. These are just some of the broad range of topics included in this book. There are different authors found throughout the Psalms. They were written over the course of hundreds of years. So what do they have in common? What makes them a cohesive piece of work?

The thing that brings all of these together is the Lord. All of these Psalms praise Him. Every single one references the Lord and what He has given to the people of Israel. Of course they would offer praise to the Lord when their lives are going well. That is the easy part of religion, to praise a higher power when you are not going through a hard time. The challenge of religion come when you cannot succeed at anything or it feels like no one is there for you. That is the test of true faith. I find it fascinating that the Israelites worshipped the Lord even when they were in war and being persecuted by their oppressors.

These varying themes also make the psalms universal. They are so popular and relevant today because people can always find a psalm to relate to. Whether they are experiencing hardship or not there is always something to help them through their lives.

The Creator through Time

I think Psalm 104 and the ancient Egyptian hymn are vastly similar, but there are some differences between the two. Both passages are focused on regarding a higher power as the creator and master of the world around them. The Egyptian hymn is focused more on the creator helping to continue life for all organisms on Earth, while Psalm 104 focuses on the creator giving a purpose to the actions of life forms on Earth. At least that is how I interpreted each of them.

I think the main message of Psalm 104 is borrowed from the Egyptian hymn because the message is essentially the same. The higher power is the creator of all life and keeps the world spinning so to speak.

“He founded earth on its solid base, not to be shaken forevermore.” –Psalm 104, v.5

“[Y]our rays embrace the lands as far as everything you have made.” –Egyptian Hymn, v.2

I think Psalm 104 reflects the world of the ancient Israelites just as well as it represents the world now. This Psalm does not lose relevance as time goes on. This Psalm was meant for the Lord and if it was prayed today it would be prayed to the same entity. I think that is what makes the Psalms timeless. They can still be used today and have an equally powerful meaning as when they were written. The Matisyahu song we listened to in class proves that the Psalms can be applied to multiple situations and have a powerful message.

The Beauty of the Psalms

The aesthetic quality of these psalms inspire people’s faith to deepen. The psalms themselves do not cause faith to appear within a person, but I believe they can help religious people to feel more connected to the LORD. The psalms still have an impact on religions still in practice. Psalm 23 is one of the most well-known psalms ever written and it is used throughout a large part of Christianity.  

“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want”

The Book of Psalms is so beautiful in its representation of the beliefs of the early Israelites. The language used by the authors of the psalms as well as the meanings behind the words were a reminder of how deep the faith of these people was. They saw the psalms as an expression of the gratitude they felt for the god that would save them from their suffering. Reading the psalms is a lovely way to remember the joy felt by the people who wrote and lived through these times of persecution.

It is important that I define which version of the psalms I believe are beautiful because we read two different translations and each translation was given such a different meaning in the two versions. I think Alter’s version provides the more meaningful translation because it is closest to the version of the original psalms.

The pure aesthetic quality of these psalms would inspire people to strengthen their belief in God, if they were inclined to believe in Him in the first place. They are used as prayers and songs. The fact that they are still quoted throughout religions shows that they are truly magnificent. 

Alter's Version of Psalms Compared to the Bay Psalm Book

I read Psalm 2 and Psalm 29 in the Bay Psalm Book. The language used to write the psalms found in the Bay Psalm Book is vastly different from Alter’s version of the Psalms, and the historical context affects the purpose of the psalms as time progresses.

The two translations are so different from each other. The language used is of course different because of the span of time between the publishing of each book, but even the cadence is different. The Psalms in Alter’s book flow. They are poetic and roll off the tongue. The versions found in the Bay Psalm Book are choppy and use very old English. It is more challenging to find the message in the old versions of the psalms.

So much time has passed since the first time the psalms were published that they are not as relevant to our lives as the first religious people. As time has passed the historical context has become even less important. Our world has become a secular place not as concerned about the background for understanding these psalms as they were intended to be read. The people who worshiped using the Bay Psalm Book were more concerned about the context by which these psalms were inspired. The Psalms in Alter’s book seem to be written more for enjoyment and analysis because the historical references do not mean as much as they did when the Psalms were originally penned. 

Protect The Mounds!

I think it is fascinating how much researchers can infer from the simple structures of the Indian Mounds. Some things mentioned in this book are purely speculation because there is no record of the Mound Building people, but the theories about them are so intricate and developed. It amazes me that the researchers that have spent their whole lives striving towards figuring out who built these mounds still have not determined the builders.

The fact that some of the mounds were used as burial sites cannot be disputed, but the fact that they are seen as a pivotal gathering point for a religion or even possibly multiple tribes is something that would take much research and thought. The theory that the mounds were used to bring multiple varied groups together is interesting. The mounds had to have a huge significance for people to put aside their differences and gather around these beautiful structures.   

I think it is important for people to want to preserve something that was so important to a culture of the past. The fact that some people throughout communities with mounds feel no need to protect them is astonishing to me. Why would you not want to protect such a unique piece of history? Nowhere else in the world has these amazingly well preserved artifacts. I think the legislation passed to protect the mounds was a necessary measure to preserve the past. I feel bad for the Indian tribes that have had to see their ancestral connections destroyed by developers. 

Effigy Mounds Could be a Link to the Afterlife

The effigy mounds found in and around Wisconsin were seen by the Native Americans that built them to be the system of symbols in a religion. The mounds brought together many different people through the burials that took place in them. The Native Americans built the mounds in shapes that reflected the different levels of Earth. This is highly symbolic and could be contributed to an idea of religion. The fact that some of the Lower Earth mounds were first carved a few feet into the ground is an interesting fact to me.

The few feet dug first into the earth makes me believe the Native Americans had a belief in an underworld. They may have believed that being buried in a mound helped the soul to move into the afterlife. If the Native Americans did indeed believe this, it would have been a unifying force among the people of the tribe. They would have been drawn together due to their common belief. The mounds took on the task of being a symbol of the afterlife that could be seen regularly. They were reminders of what would become of your soul once you died.

The shape of the mounds could also be a symbol of a religion. The animal shapes of effigy mounds serve as a great connection to nature. Using the soil to build the mounds into shapes of creatures found in nature could be seen as a spiritual ritual. Building the mounds could have been the important piece to the “religion” of the Native Americans.

Dawkins is crazy!

Dawkins is preaching to the choir. No religious people would listen to him because he is so abrasive, and he tries to shove his opinion down the throat of people who disagree with him. He thinks he is spreading his research, but the way he presents it makes a person hate anything that comes from his mouth.

Dawkins is trying to make people see his point of view. He is trying to “help” people understand that God does not exist. He believes that the absence of scientific proof proves that God cannot exist. His theory will never convert a true believer into a total nonbeliever. Faith is completely based on things you cannot see or prove. True believers are already aware that concrete proof cannot be found to support God’s existence. Dawkins cannot tell a religious person something they already know and expect them to change their mind. If Dawkins really wanted to convert people into atheists he would have to come up with something people did not know yet. He also needs to learn how to present his arguments in a less hostile fashion. His hatred of religion will not attract many people.

I have also been pondering where atheism comes from. If religion is something society cannot escape, as the article suggests, then how can someone be atheist? The article makes an argument towards religion being an individual thought process. Are atheists just born without the thoughts of a higher power, or is science truly enough for them? Science does not answer every question proposed by the universe. Religion tends to answer the questions science seemingly cannot answer. Some religious people attest to miracles, but if there is no higher power and science cannot explain these seemingly “supernatural phenomena,” then how does an atheist explain them?

Ditch Religion?

I do not think it is humanly possible to ditch religion. Civilizations from the beginning of time believed in some sort of higher power. Even if religion is not taught to a person, they will search for answers to things they cannot explain. I think the article made it clear that the human mind is always looking for some explanation to any unexplained phenomena. Religion is a natural leap for the mind to make. It is impossible for people who have strong religious beliefs to drop them.This need to fill in the gaps of logic make it impossible for a society to be without some aspect of religion.

Society would not benefit from religion being completely dropped because of the moral codes we are taught through religions. They help society to have a balance between good and evil. The morals we are taught in religions make us feel obliged to help others in times of need and treat others with respect. Society must have a moral compass and religion helps us to determine the north, south, east, and west.

I think our society should work to accept all religions. Even though religions tend to differ on their individual beliefs, they do share some basic principles. Our society should learn to focus on the main points of a religion instead of quarreling over the more precise doctrines. Society has already incorporated basic teachings into public policy with laws against murder and stealing. No one has a problem with those.