On Wed, 22 May 1996, Megan McLaughlin wrote:
> Well, actually, one did "get baptized" in the middle ages--or at least the
> priest's formula went "Baptizo te, etc." and after the ceremony one was
> said to be "baptizatus"/"baptizata".
> Megan McLaughlin
> University of Illinois
>
'
No, actually, one did not. The question, I believe, deals with
translation. To "get baptized" is intransitive. "I baptize youÉ" is
transitive. "Baptizatus" and "baptizata," from "baptizatus, -a, -um"
is both the perfect passive infinitive and the perfect passive
participle, neither of which are intransitive. The difference, although
it may seem a pedantic grammatical one, is of great importance. Baptism
is an act: one baptizes another into the community of the Faithful. One
does not become, intransitively, a baptized believer--that is a Puritan
conceit.
It is precisely the activity of the priest and the activity of the
baptized (whose proxy appears at the font) which brings an individual
into the Church. That activity is encoded in the grammatical forms used
to express it.
S. J. Harris
Loyola University Chicago
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|