Category: Sacraments

Posted on

Infant Baptism and the Complete Gratuity of Salvation

It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptised infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)

Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)

So the Kingdom of God belongs to the  little Children (in Greek brephe indicating little Children still held in the arms, babes). And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)

If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism then it follows that Baptizing infants is necessary and that to fail to do so is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do.

So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants. Strange then that some among the Protestants should criticize us for this practice. Even stranger that the Baptists are usually be the ones to do so. You’d think with a name like “Baptist” they’d be more into baptism. (Truth be told, most of the other Protestant denominations do baptize infants). It is primarily Baptists and some Evangelicals who refuse the practice. They seem to water down (pardon the pun!) the fuller meaning of baptism no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se but more as a symbol of faith already received when they said the sinners prayer and accepted Christ as their savior. But what a tragic loss for them for baptism and particularly the baptism of infants says some very wonderful things about the gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:

  1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift. How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement to me. That the child must meet some requirement seems like a work or the attainment of some meritorous status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit. To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuityof salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.
  2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that  the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptised means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12).  So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God. Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this, Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250). St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He respond with a strong no: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58). So then here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then as the will begins to mainfest and reason begins to dawn the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.
  3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development– To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even withadults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith but it is not the Theological Virtue of faith. Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It  is that but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting  relationshipwith God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. The infant trusts and depends of God and is in a right relationship with God. With his parents, this relationship of trust leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he grows. Here too it is the same withGod. As his mind awakens the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he dies (hopefully) as an old man. That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life and develops as we do is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult. To  argue as some Protestants do that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.  I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”

Another post too long. Forgive me dear reader. But please spread the word. Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this laxity. Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a  precious gift for them. Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have receved every day.

Posted on

Unrealistic Expectations are Premeditated Resentments

I was interested in Laura’s last post since she is saying what I say to most of the couples I prepare for marriage: Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.

“What’s that?” You say. Well, think about it. Have you every been  told by a friend that a certain movie is the best thing they have ever seen and that you have not truly lived until you see it? They built the movie up into a life changing event. And then you go and see the movie and it’s OK, you like it, but there is a certain disappointment when it doesn’t live up to all your expectations. Part of the problem was the sky-high expectations. Had you gone to the movie without them you might have enjoyed the movie more! At least it wouldn’t have had to live up to the “better than the second-coming” expectations.

This is often what happens with marriage. Despite all our cynicism about so many things today, many people still have powerful notions of the perfect marriage, the perfect mate, the “happily ever after” scenario. When marriage fails to live up to these sky-high expectations, there is disappointment and resentment. This is what I mean by the expression “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.”

What if marriage was a more normal thing? Rather than being an epic drama or romance, what if it was a normal way of living in a less than perfect world? What marriage had ups and downs like everything else in life? What if spouses didn’t have to be perfect but could be like everyone else, having good points and things we wish were different? What if our expectations of marriage were more down to earth and accepting of the human condition?

Sadly though, many people want their marriage to be an ideal, and if there’s any ordeal, they want a new deal!

Almost every couple I have ever talked to who had what I’d call a “good marriage” admit that there are difficulties and challenges in their marriage. Most speak of difficult periods in their marriage, times of transition and adjustments, times of financial difficulties, struggles related to the kids and so forth. Yet also there were great blessings, shared love, support, encouragement. The secret seems to have been that they were willing to take the bad with the good and accept that marriage is good but not perfect. At some point the perfect can become the enemy of the good. That is, the insistence on the perfect blinds one towhat is good and adequate.

A few thoughts to conclude:

  1. Be careful who you marry. But sure that you share fundamental values and faith. Being “in love” isn’t usually enough. We all have certain “non-negotiables” and we need to honest with ourselves about what they are.
  2. But don’t wait for the perfect spouse to come along, as Laura said in her post. Our insistence upon the perfect candidate will leave us frustrated, resentful and alone. Somewhere we have to accept the fact that we going to marry a  sinner, and that we ourselves are also sinners.
  3. Once you are married, ask God for the grace to continue to see the good things in your spouse. Thank God every day for your spouse and express that gratitude to your spouse.
  4. When you experience the imperfection of your marriage say this before you say anything else, “My marriage is not perfect because I am in it.” Begin with your own “stuff” and realize that you aren’t always easy to live with either.
  5. Realize that even difficult things in a marriage are often times “gifts in strange packages.” Spouses do not only bless each other with the good things, but even the bad things can help us grow in holiness. Spouses give each other plenty of opportunities to learn to forgive, be patient, be kind, be understanding, be slow to anger, be merciful. Last time I checked these are basic virtues we must grow in if we ever hope to enter heaven.
  6. Get over the fairytale stuff and live in the real world. You married a sinner and you are a sinner. Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.
  7. Baby steps. Organic growth. Your marriage can and will get better and better if both of you cooperate with God. But grace builds on nature and it is our human nature to change slowly, almost imperceptibly. Forgive, be patient, keep praying, keep loving, and did I say forgive? Yes I think I did say that.

 Here’s a video of a couple who have fallen out of love, are resentful and know each other’s  bad habits a little too well. They both want a better spouse, a perfect spouse. You might say they have unrealistic expectations. Once upon a time they were in love but the “I Do” became “You’d Better!” and they grew apart. Can this marriage be saved? Buy the movie  FIREPROOF and see.

Posted on

Google It

Well this is a spoof of sorts: using Google to prepare for confession. But in some respects it’s not a bad idea! As a thoroughly modern member of the Body of Christ, right out there on the cutting edge, it might not be bad to prepare for confession by googling “Seven Deadly Sins.” Or perhaps make a study of pride, envy, sloth, etc. Or try googling “examination of conscience.”  Now if you google, tell the priest that you’ve done this. If he is young and hip he’ll give you extra credit and lighten your penance. If he is a lot older he might wonder what you mean by  “google”  and go on to tell you that gargling is not a sin and that it is actually a good thing to gargle each morning after brushing one’s teeth.

So, before you confess, google it.

Posted on

Priesthood Ordination of Andrew Morkunas

AndrewMorkunasDeacon Andrew Morkunas is part of the priesthood class of 2009 for the Archdiocese of Washington, which had seven new priests ordained on June 20th of this year.  Andrew was skiing this past winter and had a pretty nasty fall.  A routine scan shockingly revealed a brain tumor which required surgery and Andrew was therefore unable to be part of the June ordination. Andrew had surgery before the scheduled ordination, and thanks be to God, and the many prayers offered for him, his recovery has gone very well.   Andrew is very ready and able to join the presbyterate of the Archdiocese of Washington and will be ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Wuerl this Saturday Aug. 29 at 10 am in the crypt of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC.

If you have a moment please say a prayer for Deacon Andrew that the good work God has begun in him may be brought to completion.

If you are interested in learning more about Andrew and his experience of dealing with a brain tumor and preparing for ordination to the priesthood, here is an article on Andrew that was run in the Washington Post this past Saturday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103631.html

In Christ,

Msgr. Panke

Posted on

Vatican Liturgists Present Proposals for Change to the Pope

In an Article published in the Italian Newspaper Il Giornale Journalist Andrea Tornielli reports that the Roman Dicastery responsible for the Sacred Liturgy met and proposed certain reforms for the consideration of the Pope. I reproduce a translated excerpts of that article here with some of my own thoughts in RED.

ROME. A document was delivered to the hands of Benedict XVI in the morning of last April 4 by Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is the result of a reserved vote, which took place on March 12, in the course of a “plenary” session of the dicastery responsible for the liturgy, and it represents the first concrete step towards that “reform of the reform” often desired by Pope Ratzinger.

 The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality [sacredness] of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of Eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentation, and inappropriate creativity. [There have been many observations over the decades that Masses in some places have become too informal. In many cases the action of worshipping God seems almost lost. The author of a book I read some years ago summarized many parish masses as “the aware and gathered community celebrating itself.” The personality of the priest and other liturgical leaders also seems exagerated in some celebrations of the Mass. Hence a re-emphasis that the Mass is an act of worship directed to God seems an important reminder and an antidote for mistaken notion that the Mass is really more for the self-actualization of the gathered faithful. However, I think we have to be careful to avoid the tendency that some have to frown upon joyful expression in the liturgy. Reverence doesn’t have to mean that everyone looks like they just sucked a lemon. Different cultures may well be more expressive than others and joyful praise can be very worshipful. The main point is to be sure that God is at the center and that it is He who is being worshipped. As for the liturgical abuses, they are clearly an ugly problem that persists.  I think of them as a sign of pride, that somehow Father or some liturgy committee knows better than the Church. Liturgical abuses are also a form of injustice since they rob the faithful of the Liturgy they are entitled to. Abuses and violations of liturgical law cause division not unity. Hence they are not of God.]

They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirming  that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, an indult which, on request of the [local] bishops, allows for the distribution of the host on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.[This may cause something of a stir. But notice that they are not saying the practice of receiving on the hand must end. Rather they state it is not the norm but is a departure that is permitted in some places. But it does seem to start a trajectory away from the practice of Communion in the hand. The Pope, at his Masses usually gives Communion only to the faithful kneeling and on the tongue. Several Bishops aroung the world have revoked the practice of permitting communion in the hand in their dioceses. I have also noticed in my parish, through no suggestion of mine that more people are returning to the practice of receiving on the tongue. I am not sure of the final outcome of this but a clear preference for communion on the tongue has been expressed by the Pope and the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is not something to ignore and it will proabably have ripple effects in the wider Church].

The Prefect of the Congregatoin for Divine Worship, Cardinal Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the east, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly. [ Here too a pretty radical shift away from current practice. Put in plainer language it means that they are studying the possibility of returning to the practice of the priest standing at the altar with the congregation behind him, but only for the Eucharistic Prayer. It is wrong to say that the priest turns his back on the people. Rather, priest and people all face the same direction. In the early Church it was the practice for everyone to face to the East (looking toward the Light, toward God and toward the direction from whence Christ would come again). As the Church spread, it was not always possible for every Church to be oriented (to the east) so the cross in the sanctuary came to represent a symbolic east. Everyone faced the cross to pray. Although it may seem seem strange today to those who never experienced the older way, consider this example. Suppose a community leader is leading a large group of citizens forward to greet a dignitary. When he speaks on behalf of the group to the dignitary who will he face? It would be strange for him to face the crowd while he spoke to the dignitary on their behalf. No, he faces the person he addresses. This necessarily means he “has his back to the crowd” but no one thinks of it this way. Thus, in the old days, when the priest spoke to God on our behalf he faced God, to the East, or toward the cross.Understood this way it is not all that odd.  The practice of everyone facing one direction for Mass continued all the way to 1965 when altars began to be turned and priests began to face the congregation. Truth be told this is an innovation unknown before 1965 and it has seriously changed the whole tenor of the Mass and tended to shift the focus to the assembly. Many liturgical theologians have strongly recommended that we study and revisit this practice. Where this study will go is uncertain and it is unlikely that we will see any sudden changes in this practice, but here too  the tide seems to be turning].

…..the “propositiones” voted by the Cardinals and Bishops at the March plenary [also]foresee a ….recovery of the celebrations in Latin in the dioceses, at least in the main solemnities, as well as the publication of bilingual Missals – a request made at his time by Paul VI – with the Latin text first. [ This is not a return to ALL LATIN. Rather it is their intent to make the Latin more accessible to the celebrant and encourage more use of Latin espeically at feast days. Today if I want to say the canon in Latin, I have to flip a lot of pages to find it in the missal. The proposal by the Cardinals would make it easier to find and encourage the use of Latin more frequently].

OK. I know these proposals will not be without controversy. Please feel free to weigh in with comments and thoughts. That’s a main purpose of this blog after all, to generate discussion. Fire away.

I’ve posted this video before but it shows the practice of “facing east” during the Eucharistic Prayer.

Posted on

An”Unpopular”Teaching on Marriage

OK, so many of you who went to Mass today hear the “Infamous”  line:  Wives  should be subordinate to their Husbands as to the Lord. For the Husband is the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is the Head of the Church…so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything; (Eph 5:20-21, 23) Well apparently the Holy Spirit didn’t get the memo that we don’t think and talk like that today!  🙂

Alright, so maybe it grates on modern ears today but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people tune out after the first line into their own thoughts and reactions and thus miss the rest of what God has to say. You may notice that there is text that follows and before a man gloats at the first line or a women reacts with anger or sadness we do well to pay attention to the rest of the text which spells out the duties of a husband. You see if you’re going to be the head of a household there are certain requirements that have to be met. God’s not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands  that is demanding and requires him to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that,  for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve  (cf  Mark 10:42-45).

So what are the requirements for a husband?

  1. Husbands, love your wives– Pay attention men, don’t just tolerate your wife,  don’t just bring home money, don’t just love in some intellectual sort of way. LOVE your wife with all your heart. Beg God for  the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully and unconditionally. Did you hear what God says? LOVE your wife! Now he goes on to tell you to love her in three ways: passionately, purifyingly and providingly.
  2. Passionate love – even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word (Paradidomi) translated here as “handed over” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love he has for his Bride the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately, be willing to suffer for her, be willing to make sacrifices for her and the children.
  3. Purifyingly – to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way God can. But what a husband is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship to Jesus Christ. He is first to  be under God’s authority himself and thus make it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Church, he should willingly help her to grow in holiness and pray with her every day. And he should become more holy as well and thus make it easier for his wife to live the Christian life.
  4. Providingly – So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it – Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food money and shelter, these days she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs even more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener and wants an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation, don’t just presume she knows. Show care for your wife, attend to her needs just like you instinctively do for your own self.  That’s what God is teaching here.

OK, so scripture DOES teach that a wife should be submitted to her husband. But what kind of husband does scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant leader, who is makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, submitted to God’s authority and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and he does) also teaches these things clearly for the husband. The teaching must be taken as a whole.

For more on this consider listening to my sermon on this from today. It is here (Teaching on Marriage) in mp3 format. It is 35 minutes!  but consider downloading it if you can’t listen just now. You can download this and other sermons of mine by going here: http://frpope.com/audio/recordings.phpand then right clicking on the title of any talk and selecting the “Save Target As”  option. You can also get my sermons at iTunes. Just search on my name. Perhaps put this or other sermons on your iPod and listen when you get the chance.

This video clip is from the movie Fireproof and depicts a heartfelt apology from a husband who realizes he has not loved his wife as he should. A beautiful movie available at Amazon if you have never seen it.

Posted on

A Sometimes Humorous Look at the Liturgy of the Early Church

As you may know the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to publicly flourish. Prior to that time Church buildings as we know them today were rare. Mass was usually celebrated in houses.

Now careful here. These “houses” were usually rather large, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.”  I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal and emphasized an informal communal quality and were celebrated facing the people. Well that isn’t really true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle, not at all. They sat or stood formally and everyone faced one direction: East.

In the drawing  above right you can see the layout of an ancient House Church from the excavated 3rd Century House Church at Dura Europos (Syria). Click on the picture for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is conducting a liturgy facing east at and altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is guarding the entrance door. The lonely looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order” as you will read below. The Picture below left shows the baptistery of the Dura Europa House Church.

What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were even though conducted under less than ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “House Liturgies.” I would like to print an excerpt here and make my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text towards the end.

Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these “house liturgies were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail was essential].  Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. [So, even in these early house Masses the sanctuary, the place where the clergy ministered was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.]  In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. [Prayer was conducted facing to the east, not facing the people].  For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.] and  when you stand to pray, the ecclessial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again note, Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, clergy and people. Everyone faced one direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the East, the origin of the light.]

Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter [Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful only to allow baptized and bona fide members to enter the sacred mysteries. No one was permitted to enter Sacred liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis or “discipline of the secret.” Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline], and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church. [Once the door was locked and the Mass begin it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also seems that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary and maintained “good order” among th laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place…also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated but the bottom line is that seating was according to Gender and Age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front and the younger ones to the back. Also those caring for young children should be in a separate area. See – Even in the old days there was a “cry room!”] And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off. [Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of these early Christians did such things! Say it isn’t so! Today ushers do this preserving of good order but the need remains!] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plain and the advice is still needed].