AmericanPapist Comments
All the priests and bishops (who also refused to enforce the liturgical norms)who conferred such invalid baptisms should wear sackcloth and ashes for a year and personally compensate the individuals they duped. What a fraud they are! Giving stones instead of the Holy Trinity to the little ones!
So just for clarity, I assume any other sacraments received (e.g. confirmation) by those (not-)baptized with theis formula would also be invalid in that they require a baptized Christian as valid "matter", correct? I expect that also means that anyone (not-)baptized with this formula would be required to stop receiving communion until they can be baptized properly? These just some of the reasons why it's such a terrible idea to go fiddling with the sacraments.
Right, Peter. That exact point is covered in my original 2004 blog.
Thanks, all for the information. I checked out the VIS myself and the links to the articles re Brisbane and emailed our Diocesan Office of Worship for a respnse especially for our RCIA teams. We have a listing provided by the Diocese and I recommended that it be updated to include the CDF directive and an instruction on its pastoral implications for RCIA Directors and Coordinators.
We always require documentation, of course, to determine if their baptism was valid, but in the case of any Catholic parish using the invalid formula, it would not always be expressed specifically on the baptism certificate.
I'd certainly like to hear more about what the Archibishop is requiring now about the Sacraments that were extended to those who were baptized using the invalid formula! And from one of the articles, the parish priest said he sometimes used a valid formula and sometimes the invalid formula! What a mess to sort out and think of the tracking of these families who may even have moved away!
Thank you for the confirmation, Dr. Peters. Talk about leaving an empty hole in the pit of your stomach. It puts a new perspective on prayer and fasting for me today, I guess.
I have heard that in parts of the U.S., infant baptisms are done by dipping the baby's butt into the baptismal font, as opposed to pouring water on the head? Sounds invalid.
?!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...n/1414029/
posts
Yup, I used to live up in the Rochester area. But(no pun intended, I have heard that this happens elsewhere.
I pray that the Holy Ghost may enlighten the hearts of the hearts of these poor benighted folks who fail to address the persons of the Trinity by Their univerally accepted names.
This is a significant issue for those entering the Catholic Church from some of the Protestant Denominations. The Episcopalians have been using such formulas for years. As I blogged here, when they changed the wording of the Trinity, they also changed their understanding of the Trinity. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
I remeber hearing of an order of nuns who rejected "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and adopted this "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" bullshit.
I think of this because it would be wise to name names when it comes to specific parishes or religious orders that may have dabbled in this nonsense. It's possible someone has been "baptized" like this but has no knowledge of it because attending family died off. But if they could pinpoint pockets of this deception, steps could be taken to remedy the situation for them.
It really is enraging the more I think about this. How dare a priest jeopardize a soul for their own ideological diarrhea. I pray that such abuses are virtually nonexistent, but then I think of the 1970s and throw up a little in my mouth.
Let us also pray for those who hace died believing that they were validly baptized.
GD-IT!! Is Luke not clear? Father. Son. Holy Ghost. !!!!
I feel like I need the People's Elbow here.
It's interesting how the Catholic News Service missed the fact that the response was really an evaluation of certain strands of feminist theology.
The CNS story simply puts it this way:
The Vatican's statement was released "because of the abuse (by priests and Protestant ministers at baptisms) and the questions that have come from it," said Father Weinandy.
The Vatican "wants to make sure the formula is the proper formula," he told Catholic News Service Feb. 29.
Instances in which a baptism has been considered invalid have been "very, very, very few and far between," he said.
But the note from the Congregation itself had specified that the variations in formula arose from feminist theology and that the response "has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects."
Clayton, nice spot. When it came out, I too noticed the line about feminist theologies, and thought "that's odd", namely, that CDF even mentioned it. they usually don't mention the context of a question or their reasoning (in any detail), but here they did. interesting.
Clayton, nice spot.
Seconded. I blogged it and noted your point about the (in hindsisght) glaring ommission by CNS. The inclusion of the context (naming names in a manner of speaking) does seem to have wide possible implications.
I should be more precise -- the mention of feminist theology and the broad implications came not in the CDF note, but in the article from the Vatican Information Service.
For more about the feminist underpinnings, see my post: watershed moment for feminists in the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, they must, if married, now receive that Sacrament of Matrimony.
I think you are mistaken about this. The marriage will become sacramental when the unbaptized party (or parties) is baptized. For example, when a married Jewish couple converts to Catholicism their marriage doesn't have to be "blessed" or convalidated. It is already valid.
dcs,
The line you quote from Thomas' blog post is a paraphrase of this part of the CNS article:
"Even if only one of the spouses had been baptized with an invalid formula, there still is no valid sacrament of matrimony unless before the wedding the couple had obtained the dispensation needed for a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian, [Cardinal Navarrete] said."
I think the cardinal's concern was not just for the sacramentality of the marriage; it was instead for the marriage even existing since a Catholic cannot validly contract a natural (i.e. non-sacramental) marriage without dispensation. See CIC canon 1086 § 1 ("A marriage is invalid when one of the two persons was baptized into the catholic Church . . . and the other was not baptized.").
That situation could be fixed, though, by baptism and simple validation through canon 1156.
I could be wrong about this though, and if someone could verify I would greatly appreciate it.
Here's the full quote for canon 1086 § 1: "A marriage is invalid when one of the two persons was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, and the other was not baptized."
Commenting by HaloScan
