I've now had a bit of a chance to dig on this one, so
here goes.
Yes, Lustral water is chrismated at the Easter Vigil.
It is wirth noting, though that all forms of ohly
water in the MA are blessed with salt.
The liturgical directions strictly speaking only
include the blessing ('confection' is the technical
word, but makes me think of chocolate!) of Lustral
water at the Easter Vigil. Notes, however, provide for
the renewal of this water as often as is necessary to
keep it fresh.
The 1549 BCP contains an adaptation of this rite for
this purpose, noting that it should take place at
least once a month.
By 1552 the rite has been moved to the beginning of
the baptismal liturgy and seems to be used
normatively. Thus it remains in 1662.
The 1549 (I haven't checked this, it's from Whitaker)
states that the rite given should always be used in
the event of home baptisms. This would, again, seem to
preclude the possibility of midwives performing the
ceremony, unless they were to have collected the water
beforehand. I'll check on this and post further.
Baptisms by midwives are certainly carried out still
in the Catholic Church in cases of emergency. I was
'done' in an oxygen tent and, rather more recently, so
was my nephew!
Rob
--- Chris Laning <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At 10:44
PM +0000 12/28/00, B.M.COOK wrote:
> >In my (admittedly Anglican) experience, the water
> used for baptism is always
> >blessed by the officiating clergyman at the
> beginning of the service. I have
> >always assumed / presumed that this was a general
> Christian church practice
> >that the Church of England had NOT discarded at the
> reformation.
>
> Apparently, though, midwives could baptise with
> *any* water, so long
> as it was pure and clean and didn't have other
> things mixed in with
> it. There is in the same source a quote from 1576
> from the oath that
> licensed midwives were required to take, which says,
>
> "...that in the ministration of the sacrament
> of baptism in the
> time of necessity, I will use apt and the
> accustomed words of
> the same sacrament, that is to say, these
> words following or
> the like in effect, 'I christen thee in the
> name of the Father,
> the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' and none other
> profane words.
> And that in such time of necessity, in
> baptizing any infant
> born, and pouring water upon the head of the
> same infant,
> I will use pure and clean water, and not any
> rose or damask
> water, or water made of any confection of
> mixture; and
> that I will certify the curate of the parish
> church of every
> such baptizing."
>
> This would seem intended to prevent the making or
> use of lustral
> water, which if I recall correctly has chrism and
> salt in it (?).
>
> Also, after about 1604, any provision for midwives
> baptising children
> quietly faded out of official English policy -- the
> possibility was
> completely ignored, since the official view was that
> *all* baptisms
> should be performed by an ordained minister, and
> preferably in
> church
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
