I feel the need to start a new thread about the CDF’s recent statement regarding the validity of baptisms administered using the formula “creator, redeemer, and sanctifier.” I think the CDF’s action was appropriate and necessary and agree with Joe Komonchak that the various attempts at humor have trivialized what ought to be a very serious issue. Perhaps we might start again.
In my experience, those charged with the training of priests make one thing quite clear to them: the sacraments do not belong to you. They are a gift of Christ and His Church. Particularly when it comes to the sacramental formulas, you simply do…not…ever…substitute words of your own choosing for the words of the rite. To do so is a gross abuse of authority.
I admit that it is easier to say that this is so than to explain why it is so. There is a danger of falling back into a theology that envisions God as a large sacramental vending machine who dispenses a product—“grace”—when the requisite buttons are pushed in the proper order.
The alternative that is often offered, however, is equally dangerous. It suggests that the concrete shape of the sacraments does not matter. Since God loves us and His grace is everywhere, the value of the sacraments is merely to symbolize a reality that is already present. The specific words and symbols are less important than the sentiment that underlies them. As long as that sentiment is present, why should we quibble if a few of the words are changed?
While this may be a comforting theology in some ways, it is not what the Church teaches about the sacraments. While she may have expressed herself in better and worse ways over the course of the centuries, the unifying theme of the Church’s teaching on the sacraments is that they matter. They do not merely express, reflect, or signify. They also cause, effect and transform. Because the sacraments matter, the shape of the sacraments—their unique particularity—also matters. We are beings whose very human existence is deeply shaped by language and symbol. To change language and symbols is not to change something epiphenomenal. It is to change reality itself.
Invoking the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” while immersing a person in water may be some form of baptism, but it is not Christian baptism. It is not the baptism that Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:18. It is not the baptism that structured the shape of the great creeds. It is not the baptism that binds together separated Christian communities. It is not the baptism that we recall when our dampened fingers make the sign of the cross as we enter the church on Sunday. It is not, ultimately, the baptism that initiates a person into the living Body of Christ.
Do I believe that God will hold it against those who, through no fault of their own, were baptized with this formula? I do not (although there are some others who may have something to answer for at the Judgment). There is no question, though, that these persons have been robbed of something that should have been theirs by right. When people come to the Church, they expect and deserve the sacraments that come to us from Christ, not a pale counterfeit of our own creation.
Thank you Peter.
I thought the reflexive sneering and contempt in the other thread was very revealing and, to be honest, a rather embarrassing sight for the webpage of a magazine that prides itself on intellectual content. You are a breath of fresh air, and exactly right.
I know I’m not at the high academic level that many of the posters here attain, and that I enjoy, but the implication, repeated by the Vatican, that previous sacraments that did not use the exact formula are invalid is not allowing the Holy Spirit to work among us. If an alternative form is wrong, that must be corrected, but we should always “test everything and keep what is good”. If we don’t explore the possibilities, we are just a sect with some specific rules and not the universal Church of God that has all fullness within it.
“Do I believe that God will hold it against those who, through no fault of their own, were baptized with this formula? I do not (although there are some others who may have something to answer for at the Judgment). There is no question, though, that these persons have been robbed of something that should have been theirs by right. When people come to the Church, they expect and deserve the sacraments that come to us from Christ, not a pale counterfeit of our own creation.”
Fair enough. But what do you mean by “God won’t hold it against them”? The people involved have apparently not been baptized. It follows that all of the other sacraments that require baptism are also not effective (according to the Church spokesmen). The “reflexive sneering and contempt” that the other reader felt was directed to the idea that a person could be “non-baptized” and then live a life as an active an (most importantly) devout Catholic and then find (when, after death in the sight of God?) that they in fact weren’t even Christian to begin with and further, that all of the benefits of all or the sacraments that they had partaken in were false and illusory, because a true baptism is REQUIRED for these. You claim that there would be some sort of mitigation in the sight of God for these people. If the mitigation was total, in that God would in fact recognize that these non-baptized people did in fact obtain the sacramental grace that they expected, then it is in fact the case that a major component of one’s participation in a sacrament is one’s own belief and that the form itself is not sufficient or in this case, absolutely necessary. This was the crux of the issue. No one is arguing that the form is not important. But yes, some people were laughing at the idea that one could have been baptized by an illicit form and then be damned despite living what they falsely thought was a good Catholic life, as though baptism (and the other sacraments) are little more than magic spells.
Do you believe that God will give these people a pass? Maybe you shouldn’t, at least until you find out whether the Church spokemen think so or not.
I wish there were some way to know how wide spread the practice was. I have been to some Masses where everything changed but the bread and wine, and I cannot recall hearing this formulation for the sign of the cross or the final blessing. I certainly have never heard it at a baptism. My point is not to doubt that it happens. I am simply curious to know how much it has happened, and whether it was going on around the world or isolated to English speaking countries. I also wonder why the CDF got involved, and why it could not have been handled in a more pastoral way on the local level.
Peter,
I feel you have barely addressed the issue about which people were expressing bemusement in the other thread, while making points that most of us who contributed to that thread would probably not disagree with. The discussions was largely about the CDF and Vatican officials saying that there are some people who may think they are baptized, think they are Catholics and Christians, and think they are married, but because an incorrect formula was used in their baptism, they are in fact not baptized (or married) and they are not even Christians. It was the plight of those individuals that was to me the important part of the thread. Then in a “clarification,” we are told people may presume they are baptized unless a witness remembers an incorrect formula was used. This confused the issue further, since it seems to imply that an invalid baptism is valid if nobody actually remembers it was done improperly.
Three points: First, the ruling by the CDF said nothing about those who baptized using the incorrect formula, only those who were (not) baptized. Second, what, if anything, were the people robbed of if the incorrect formula was used but nobody remembers? Third, if priests know that they have been using the incorrect formula, are they obligated to go through the baptizmal records and make sure everyone they baptized invalidly gets a valid baptism?
The message we have received so far seems to be that the shape of baptism is very important indeed, unless nobody remembers how it was administered, and in that case, it doesn’t matter at all.
Your post is really interesting Peter, and on the whole, I agree completely with the sacramental theology you line out. The sacraments do not simply “intensify” (or whatever) a reality that is already present, but rather do effect something.
That being said, I think we have to be careful, especially when we talk about the significance of the language used. I do not at all want to make it seem that the words are unimportant (they are, after all, the form of the sacrament according to St. Thomas), but I don’t know how much we can attribute them to coming directly from Christ. Though the baptismal formula is indeed ancient and is found in Jesus’ mouth in Matthew, does that in fact mean that it is the ONLY way of doing the sacrament?
I am thinking less of baptism here, and more of the beautiful multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers that have existed within the history of the Church. Even the “magic words” of the Institution Narrative have been seen as non-essential (in the Vatican’s relatively recent approval of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari), but rather the intent to do in the prayer “what the Church does and intends to do by the sacrament” (or words to that effect, I don’t have the statement in front of me). If that kind of diversity is permissible in the Eucharist, why is not in baptism? Both are Sacraments of Initiation and of unity.
It also raises the point (though I hestitate to say it, because I too rather hate it when clergy meddle with the words of the text) of who gets to change language and why. The pastors are the ones who are in the best position to know the needs of their communities. That is not to say they have carte blanche to re-write texts, but it needs to be remembered that most of these texts (though not the baptismal formula that I know of) HAVE indeed been re-written over the course of history numerous times, and usually by single or small groups of people, authorized by some bishops, pope, king, or emperor. What makes their modfications valid and these others invalid, especially if the intent is to “do what the Church does” and make it more edifying for the people?
These are not rhetorical questions, just some that came to mind when I read your very thoughtful post.
Quick second point, I think the biggest issue involved in this is not really about the sacraments but more about the Trinity. The formula “Creator, Liberator, Sanctifier” does not work, not because it’s untrue, but because it equates these actions with a particular Trinitarian person. Does the Spirit sanctify and the Son does not? Things like that. On that I think the CDF is correct, though I think the sacramental theology they’re using is incoherent with that which is behind the approval of Addai and Mari.
Has everyone forgotten about the “baptism of desire”? The baptisms in question were invalid according to their form, but only God knows if the grace normally given in baptism was given. If the person/Church desired baptism, it may have been.
I suppose that is why the witness to the improper form is important. If someone remembers the deviation from the proper, there is some likelihood of doubt.
There are administrative consequences of uncertainty, but those apply to the administrators, not the recipients. The recipients should be able to rest secure in the mercy of God as long as the Church accepts them as members of our community.
I am just looking forward to hearing about people who want annullments because their baptism was invalid.
Peter: I think it is right that you try to give an important issue another opportunity for discussion, and I think you do so gracefully. However, I confess to finding no clear indication of the “why” it matters rather than the “that” it matters in your post. You are keen to suggest God cannot be reduced to a vending machine for grace (I enjoyed the image), but then insist that the efficacy of the sacrament is indeed dependent on carefully defined human acts. I guess my question is, “why these acts in particular?” There are many actions and elements in a nontraditional baptism that could be said to contribute to the efficacy of the sacrament. Perhaps only the action itself is necessary. Do you, or anyone else know if there are specific spoken prayers when Jews immerse themselves in a mikva three times, either for the purpose of clensing or conversion?
Bob Kelly: Whether or not you claim any specific level of education, your words speak of a deep wisdom.
To be clear, I do not object to a religious community saying that thus and so is how they would like things to be done, if only to help maintain an identity for the community. However, I think it helps to explain clearly why thus and so is so important.
David G., ditto on what you said.
I see two distinct problems here:
1. The validity of the sacraments using “alternate” formulae. I don’t know how anybody can say that with any assurance that these sacraments are not valid. If the priest was clearly referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in using these different names, can we say for certain that that wasn’t good enough for God, even if it wasn’t good enough for the Church?
2. The language itself. It seems to me, as I think Kathy and Gina pointed out on the previous thread, that the new names blur the relationship among the three Persons of the trinity. For starters, “liberator” desexes Christ, and–let’s get over this, girls; he was a man–and de-emphasizes his humanity. As a feminist who likes the inclusive language in the 1979 BCP, which is idiomatic and unobtrusive, I have no problem with “Father” for God, since its awkward to say “Mother and Father” and “Parents” sounds like something off a Social Services form. The Episcopalians had sense enough to leave that formula alone; Catholics should, too.
All that said, I’d get “reprocessed” by any priest who used the Monster Truck Trinity formula on me. And while I generally abhor the practice of narc’ing on priests and deacons to the bishop for every little ad lib, I think this is one that needs to be reported.
Thank you, Peter, for giving the theme a new start. I agree with Elaine that the other thread began poorly and quickly degenerated into comments for which “sneering and contempt” were not too strong descriptions. In that respect, it has been for me, by far, the most disappointing thread hosted on this stie.
The formula for baptism is scriptural, from Mt 28, so I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would abandon it. Even Mormons use it, though apparently not effectively. Even if there are reasons to translate it into a new language, that of the Femintheo tribe of the Australian and American urbs, it should still be close to what Jesus said (or Matthew wrote).
I expect the problem hinges on how one interprets “In the Name of”. Does that mean that Father Son and Spirit are the names of the 3 persons? Or does it recognize that we do not know the real names of the Unnameable, though we know enough to be able to identify them as Father Son and Spirit? If the first question is answered yes, the formula cannot be changed. If the latter, other identifications, like Creator, should be useable. The Vatican probably subscribes to some 3rd position.
The other issue is more political. Changing the formula may represent an act of dissent and an attack on tradition. If so, a response from the Vatican is more appropriate than if it is just liturgical adaptation.
Joe,
I think it matters because this form of baptism has been in constant use in the Western Church. The Eastern form varies slightly, but is recognized as valid by the Latin church. If a person is being baptized into a trinitarian faith, then the form should reflect good trinitarian theology. As others have pointed out the formulation of creator, redeemer, and sustainer does not reflect accurately trinitarian theology. When I say this i do not mean to suggest that the form is magic, but rather that it is the received tradition of the church into which someone is being baptized. It is the form under which others have been baptized and will be baptized, and so there is a communal dimension to it that I believe should be respected.
“While this may be a comforting theology in some ways, it is not what the Church teaches about the sacraments. While she may have expressed herself in better and worse ways over the course of the centuries, the unifying theme of the Church’s teaching on the sacraments is that they matter.”
Frankly Peter, I am surprised that you come out solidly for the “church of the sacraments” and stress because the bishops have taught matter and form for the sacraments that it is true. While you stay safely within orthodoxy you may clash violently with reason. What is unchangeable in the church is the promise of Christ to lead us to God. Why words have to become fixed in stones you have no way proven. What matters is the living of the life of Christ not how words are formulated.
What I find notable is that those who criticized the ridicule of the former thread are now ridiculing the ridiculers.
The fixation of the matter and form of the sacraments are problematic in the same way that Augustine was problematic in sending unbaptized infants to hell. This is a tremendous error for so intellectual a giant. He called unbaptized babies the “Limbs of Satan.” For Augustine and the church for many years THAT MATTERED.
Counterfeit Peter, is in a church whose members tolerated the holocaust, the genoiced in present Africa and Serbia, the North American indians, etc.etc.
The church of the sacraments and of dogma need a more critical lens than the one you are purporting.
I really would be interested about what John W O”Malley would have to say if you ran by him what you have written here.
I remeber that BXVI seemed to stress that ou rfaith should not be presented so much as a sey of rules and comands but of the living love of Christ.
I thought the “sneering and contempt” posts related to the Pew research and how folks in the pews or walking away therefrom may see this ruling.
We just had a Comonweal article on the change and maybe need for more change in the sacrament of reconciliation.
Evident there were pastoral considerations and the perspective of one dealing with the needs of the Church and service thereto on a very direct level.
Thus I think Joe P. is on target on this thread.
It’s obvious that there is a communal side to the worship of the Church that needs some directives. As in any beaurracracy leadership can also assume a humorless by the book attituse that dismisses anything else- and cast it as “sneering and contempt.”
I think the Matthew formula makes great sense, but the notion of validity here seems not to be crystal clear.
So the problem of the credibility of this decsion to the guy in the pew has import too and if they see it as another of rules and regs from the top down, I can easily see some folks tossing it off with humor. Defensive reactions to that, right or wronfg, will provide a further turn off.
I agree that words can sometimes change reality, so long as you confine yourself to the subject of human reality. If changing the words of baptism is wrong, it is mostly because it takes away the promise implicitly held out that the newly baptized are joining a particular community under specified grounds. It’s wrong for the priest to change it to address his own concerns or those of others. For one thing, it’s totally misleading as to what exactly the newly baptized are expected to believe.
Raymond Brown says, “The baptismal formula in the name of three divine agents was presumably in use in the Matthean church at this period, having replaced an earlier custom of baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; etc.).” (See An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 203.)
I agree with Peter, and I’m glad for his post.
Though not a Scriptural source for the proper sacramental words of Baptism, the Didache indicates that the Scriptural “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” were part of the ritual for the Sacrament of Baptism by at least as early as 100 A.D.
See Chapter 7:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
The Didache is an interesting document to appeal to within the context of this discussion. Although the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are used in the baptismal formula, there is not a hint of Trinitarian theology in the document. The term son or servant is applied at least equally to David and Jesus. If any priority is to be found, it seems to lie with David, as the purpose of Jesus is characterized as re-revealing David.
Strikingly, the liturgy of the Eucharist makes no mention of the last supper. The entire document lacks any discussion of the crucifixion and resurrection.
Since we are talking about the important of the form of ritual, notice how the Didache indicates that cold running water is the preferred method of baptism.
Also, I think there are good reasons to date the Didache even earlier than 100.
I am just checking back in, and thanks to all for the on-point comments. My apologies for starting the previous thread off on too light a note–I do see this blog as a conversation, and one that should be open to people of all stations inside and ouside the Church to participate.
Such a participatory conversation will oftentimes entail reactions–humorous or otherwise–that were quite consistent with the Vatican statement, in this case. And I think one such valid reaction is anger at a seemingly Pharisaical church suddenly voiding the entire sacramental lives of however many Christians are involved. It is often hard to remember that we are dealing with real people here, on the blog and in the pews, who will have very human and understandable reactions. The sabbath was made for man…
That said, I think the subsequent posts have, ironically perhaps, wound up where we started. There was little disagreement that the Vatican pronouncement was pastorally insensitive. And there seemed to be agreement that the traditional formulation is vitally important and should stand, for reasons of historical authenticity and the tradition of the ages that binds all Christians. But it is interesting to see that the formulation has in fact changed.
Peter, I do think your last paragraph was perplexing in that you seemed to say you could not bring yourself to consider all these sacraments invalid, but then you say these folks were robbed of something–perhaps the sacrament of baptism?
So where do we stand? Vatican’s statement was right on the theology, insensitive on the pastoral application. Oh, and I have an inappropriate sense of humor…
PS: To really muddy the waters, what are thoughts on gluten-free hosts?
Thank you, Peter, for starting a much-needed thread. I’d like to make three comments, for whose length I apologize in advance.
First, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Churches, actually confirms the CDF’s position on the baptismal formula. In 2001, the CDF declared that this Anaphora, which does not contain explicitly the words of institution, was nonetheless a valid Eucharistic prayer for three reasons: (1) it comes from the early Church, (2) it is the prayer of a Church that has preserved the apostolic faith and succession, as well as “full Eucharistic faith”; and (3) the words of institution, although not explicitly recited, were present in a dispersed fashion throughout the entire prayer. That is, although the Anaphora differs significantly from other Eucharistic prayers, it nonetheless is grounded in the Church’s apostolic faith and life. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
The baptismal formulae rejected by the CDF, however, do not meet these criteria. Baptism in the early Church was done using the now-classic Trinitarian formula. The Christian communities that use the newer formulae tend not to be “Churches” in the now-contentious sense; the Orthodox, for instance, do not use such formulae at all. And, the Trinitarian theology of the new formulae is not grounded in the Church’s faith and communal life, as Alan Mitchell and Andy Buechel indicate. The Trinitarian question, more than the sacramental one, is the primary issue, as Andy notes.
A second point. Baptism, like the other six sacraments, is a sacrament of faith. It is not a magic rite, surely, but it also presupposes faith in what the Church has professed across the centuries. This is why baptism is always preceded by a profession of faith by either the candidate or his/her sponsor(s). This profession concludes with the minister saying, “This is the faith of the Church.” No faith, no baptism. Thus, if the baptismal formula does not adequately express the Church’s faith, then the sacrament is invalid. It is not a sacrament of the faith of the Church, the Church into which one wishes to be baptized. It is, instead, either a magic rite or the “sentimental” ritual criticized by Peter.
A final point. I would guess that, underneath some of the comments criticizing the CDF’s declaration, is a sense that such statements—especially when coming from Rome—are abstract nit-picking exercises, largely irrelevant to the lives of ordinary believers: “Let the theologians and hierarchs split hairs, while we go about the real business of living the faith.” This pits orthopraxy against orthodoxy, and reduces the Church’s faith to a lifeless grab-bag of arcane doctrines. This is a self-fulfilling move, in which some protest the supposed irrelevance or harshness of such statements and beliefs, all the while fostering such irrelevance and harshness through their easy dismissal of the same. I am struck that some of those who speak most of an “adult” or “thinking” faith often fail to exhibit mature thought, settling instead for adolescent petulance and posturing. If we want such doctrinal statements to be taken seriously and even criticized seriously (rather than tritely), then flip or hot-headed comments will do no good. A “critical” faith demands more of us all.
Wow. I’d like to plumb the ferocity of the reactions here, but I think that would take more psychology than theology.
One point, Chris, if I may. You write:
“Baptism, like the other six sacraments, is a sacrament of faith. It is not a magic rite, surely, but it also presupposes faith in what the Church has professed across the centuries. This is why baptism is always preceded by a profession of faith by either the candidate or his/her sponsor(s). This profession concludes with the minister saying, “This is the faith of the Church.” No faith, no baptism. Thus, if the baptismal formula does not adequately express the Church’s faith, then the sacrament is invalid. It is not a sacrament of the faith of the Church, the Church into which one wishes to be baptized. It is, instead, either a magic rite or the “sentimental” ritual criticized by Peter.”
My question: How does this square with the tradition of infant baptism? If it requires a faith that an infant cannot express or understand or choose or reject, then how is it valid, whatever the formula? I know the standard answers, yes. But if the person being baptized cannot adequately express the faith of the church, putting all the weight on the formula to do that does seem to make it “magical.”
Joe–
You no doubt know more about the Didache than I do, but I have never really regarded it as a statement of theological principles, more a manual of sorts to guide and make more uniform the liturgical practice in what was becoming a rapidly spreading and far flung Church. I do find it a fascinating document, however. In addition to the preference for using running water during baptismal rituals that you mentioned, it is interesting that the order given in the Didache for the consecration of the bread and the wine is the reverse of the order that is in place today.
Just want to add that there’s a clear consensus here for the Matthew formula.
The division is not an oversimplified “orthopraxy/orthodoxy’) but how vital , indeed how necessary the formula is, especially given thge pastoral implications, as dDavid has pointed out.
A couple of folks I’ve mentioned this to whom I consider not to be dummies and who are committed to the faith, just rolled their eyes.
Of course, others can believe that hierach’s can’t split hairs…
I would love to hear David Gibson explain how exactly it is “pastoral” for a person on the local level to deny an individual approaching the Catholic Church, the proper ritual of the Catholic Church. It strikes me, on the contrary, as an expression of massive egotism and deeply unpastoral.
It seems to me the CDF move is quite pastoral, reminding those in positions of – yes, – pastoral ministry – that they are not lone rangers, subjecting others to their whims and theological opinions. I go to Mass or approach a sacrament, I am not going there to be immersed in the interpretations of one person. I expect to be immersed in what the Church offers me, binding me not only to Christ, but to all members of the Body not only internally but externally.
Secondly I would love to hear those who scoff at this as nitpicking and so on clearly state the alternative universe in which you suggest we move to.
Are there any limits or structures by one wishing to administer a baptism in the Catholic Church must adhere to?
If a formula strikes me as Trinitarian enough, do I, in administering the sacrament, have the right to use it?
I think it’s so easy to scoff, but those who do never seem to articulate what alternatives they are suggesting. Concretely, please.
What should Catholic baptism look like? Anything in particular?
Elaine, I think you continue to argue past the point. (Though that seems in keeping with the severely Manichean reactions this topic has produced.)
The pastoral point was not to justify those who created or used the formula. Rather, the point was a pastoral concern for those who underwent these sacraments. The Vatican could easily have shown the solicitude toward those folks as they did, and do, for the Lefebvrists, e.g.
Perhaps a reverse illustration of this point: The Vatican last year announced that homosexuals could not be ordained priests. Initially, there was a push to declare invalid the ordination of homosexuals already ordained. Figuring out who was what would have become so complex that pursuing that avenue was dropped. Above all, redoing all the invalid sacraments performed by gay priests would have been impossible.
Still, the Vatican document on gay seminarians does set up an oddity: That a class of people ordained before last year can validly celebrate sacraments that the same class of people cannot now be ordained to celebrate. The order leaves open the question (as it does many questions) of the validity and legality of sacraments performed by gay men whose sexuality may have slipped through the net.
Elaine,
I see that the David to whom the question was addressed has already answered you, but since it happend while I was writing this, I will go ahead and post it.
Take a look at the document in question:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/21756.php?index=21756&lang=it#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE
Note that it does not mention the individuals who performed baptisms using the incorrect formulas or what the consequences to them are of departing from the traditional words. It only declares that those who have been baptized with either of these formulas is definitively not baptized.
The pastoral issue, as I see it, is that an unknown number of Catholics are now left wondering if they really are baptized Catholics and among them some may not even know if they have made a valid confession or whether they are married to the person they believe to be their spouse. See the following:
You say the following: “I think it’s so easy to scoff, but those who do never seem to articulate what alternatives they are suggesting. Concretely, please.”
I am no expert in these kinds of things, so anyone feel free to correct me, but I would say a pronouncement could have been handed down declaring that the use of these alternative formulas was illicit and consequently priests were forbidden to use them. That would have targeted the “perpetrators” and not the “victims.”
Also, if the CDF felt they had to call into question the validity of baptisms that have already occurred, and the following is true, they could have made it clear:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801185.htm
However, it seems to me that the “clarification” I just quoted from the USCCB actually muddies the waters, since it implies that the validity of baptism depends not on the formula that was used, but rather on whether anyone remembers an incorrect formula was used. That seems to me quite a different matter. (And wouldn’t priests know the formula they have been using, and have access to baptismal records to “recall” all the people who were not validly baptized by them?)
You asked, “If a formula strikes me as Trinitarian enough, do I, in administering the sacrament, have the right to use it?” If you read the document from the CDF, it is only a ruling against two specific formulas. You would need an expert to fully answer your question, but as I read it, the answer is “maybe.”
I don’t think anyone in either thread on this topic is arguing for a different formula for baptism than the currently sanctioned one. Almost everyone seems to me to be expressing a variant on the same theme–that the CDF has just said to an unknown number of people, “You are not Catholic. You are not even Christian. You are not married. Deal with it.”
Dear David,
My response had both theological and psychological motivations, indeed, the latter being rooted in the former. As a theologian, I teach 150 students a year, three times a day, three days a week. I deal directly and daily with the abysmal catechetical and theological formation of my students and their families. The “moralistic therapeutic deism” described by the sociologist Christian Smith is the religion of nearly all of my students, and particular doctrinal claims—from whatever church or religion—are regarded as totally irrelevant and even dangerous. The vast majority of my Lutheran students, for instance, have no idea whatsoever about justification by faith. My task as a systematic-doctrinal theologian isn’t made easier by poor secular or religious commentary that furthers the perception that doctrine is basically irrelevant, divisive, or unpastoral. Readers and contributors to this blog are people who care about Catholicism, whatever questions or doubts we might harbor. If such committed and motivated people comment in shallow or reactive ways, then those who are less committed and motivated have little chance of a substantial engagement with key issues of faith and belonging.
In terms of infant baptism, I think that the standard answers are right and adequate. Basically, where adult baptism brings out intentionality or a conscious decision for faith and church belonging, infant baptism recalls that the believer’s faith is never his/hers alone, but that he/she comes to faith only in the community and through the faith of that community’s members. In this view, the role of the sponsor(s) should evoke both awe and trembling. Adult baptism says, “I have chosen this faith and made it my own.” Infant baptism says, “I owe my faith to those who loved me enough to share it with me.” Both times of baptism bring out something essential to the life of faith, but infant baptism rests not on a magical formula but on the real faith of those who profess the faith. The same thing goes when an adult professes the Creed despite his/her possible questions or doubts about a given article of faith: the belief of the whole community supports and envelops the belief of each member. As that elderly-Bavarian-theologian-who-must-not-be-named said when he was installed as pope, “I am not alone. I do not have to carry alone what in truth I could never carry alone. All the Saints of God are there to protect me, to sustain me and to carry me.”
Moreover, infant baptism makes less sense if one has a weak or non-existent theology of original sin. Catholicism, in first accepting and then commending infant baptism, has believed that such baptism offers the child reconciliation and the grace to live a Christian life—gifts that shouldn’t be denied unnecessarily to anyone.
One question that I would raise about infant baptism is what to do when the parents and/or sponsors don’t (intend to) practice their faith. In that case, it seems that the baptismal act of faith would be attenuated or lacking, and that therefore baptism should be postponed until the parents and sponsors are able and willing to raise that child in the Church’s faith. Infant baptism presupposes a lively, even established community of faith that can support parents and sponsors in their efforts to raise children in the faith. When that thick community is missing, pastoral practice needs to be reconsidered.
p.s. I don’t believe that Congregation for Catholic Education’s 2005 document on homosexuality and the priesthood made any judgment on the validity of ordaining such men. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the former Vatican press secretary, made some noise in that direction, but I have not seen any magisterial teaching that would invalidate such ordinations or the sacraments celebrated by these men. I am willing to be corrected, though.
David Gibson:
Having started this whole thing off with the words “Baptism, schmaptism,” you’re not in a very good position to start giving lessons to the Vatican on how to initiate or conduct a conversation.
I am generally in favour of gender neutral language.
I think that there should be freedom granted to explore gender neutral language for the Trinity at least academically or intellectually – but not liturgically. We know that God does not have a sex since God is spirit. Further, it is my understanding that the application of gender to the Trinity is done to denote the personal attributes of God. It is not meant to convey that the Divine person’s are male in the biological or even gendered way we think of that.
That said, I do have some problems with the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier formulation though. While they do designate functions of the Trinity they fail to communicate the inter-relationship of the person’s of the Holy Trinity. Also, designating Creator for Father is a problem in that the Son was designated to refer to the logos (or word), through which all was created. It doesn’t quite work when you pray over it or meditate on it using these terms.
I wish the CDF would provide more rationale for their decisions. If they are going to be a juridic body, they should provide the background of the issue and their response to it to show that they have reflected on the issues that gave rise to the question in the first place. If we are going to talk about how integral faith is to reason, it should be reflected in our own house. The underlying issue is not so much faith in the Trinity (although that is important and as guardians of the faith, the Magisterium does need to be very deliberative) as it is language and the necessity of gender neutrality in it to promote greater inclusion of male and female. That is a legitimate concern and it should be affirmed that those promoting this alternate use, are not necessarily coming at it from an ideological stance. Good faith should be presumed.
“However, it seems to me that the “clarification” I just quoted from the USCCB actually muddies the waters, since it implies that the validity of baptism depends not on the formula that was used, but rather on whether anyone remembers an incorrect formula was used.”
????? A legal presumption of the validity of baptism is nothing more than common sense. One assumes the baptism was performed validly, unless one has some reason to believe that it was not. The pastoral problem of someone fretting that he hasn’t been baptized in the absence of evidence, and that, therefore, he’s in danger of hellfire is a problem of scrupulosity, one which probably manifests itself in a thousand different ways than this. Most normal Catholics, whether nominal or practical or somewhere in between, will correctly not have any concern.
I’m also dismayed by the hoots of derision by so many directed towards Cardinal Levada and Benedict over this issue. This decision is not in any way a reliance on “magic words.” Contrary to what some think, there is no permanent formula for baptism – a fact which is set forth in old preconciliar manuals, and Cardinal Levada wasn’t saying that there is one. But the mere fact that there isn’t a permanent formula, doesn’t mean anything goes either. Every sacrament is a sign. I ask: when one baptizes in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, just what is being signified? How about baptizing with rose petals in the name of faith, hope, and charity (another variation I’ve heard of?) Frankly, I don’t know, but whatever it is, it isn’t the Trinity that is being signified – one is being baptized into the name of something else.
I would go so far as to say a willful refusal to use the Trinitarian baptismal form in favor of the gender-neutral form is nothing less than baptismal apostasy. A person who under serious reflection thinks “so what, who cares” about such fundamental dogmas such as baptism and the Trinity, should ask themselves why they are in the Catholic Church and why they aren’t some other non-dogmatic religion, for instance like Quakers, which (at least in my opinion) is an honorable, mostly gentle, freethinking kind of religion.
Patrick,
Does this mean for someone who was baptized invalidly, and nobody remembers, it is in every way as if he or she had been validly baptized?
Do priests who have used the invalid formulas have an obligation to go through the baptismal records and alert those who were baptized with the invalid formulas, or does “witness” in the passage I quoted refer to onlookers rather than participants?
Some wondered how many people would be affected by this. Browsing the web I found a case a few years old of a parish in Australia where the invalid formula had been in use for years, and the estimate was 100 babies a year had been baptized there.
There have been many heartfelt and thoughtful defenses of the traditional baptismal formula. My question is this: why would it not have been sufficient for the CDF to denounce nontraditional formulas and to clarify the importance of the traditional formula? Why was it necessary to take the second step of invalidating the baptisms that performed incorrectly?
This is the Australian case from 2004 I mentioned above.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/411/129.php
I know I’m coming in very late on this discussion, and I’m not about to contribute any theological insights like I’ve read above. I only have a couple questions about this. I know I live happily in my little north east ghetto in Pa., but how widespread is this? I’ve never heard of it till today. I admit the only baptism i’ve attended lately are my seven grandchildren, and they were done very traditionally. If the purpose of change is to make the liturgy more meaningful and vibrant to the attendees, why would anybody conclude changing the words of baptism does this. It’s sougt of like saying changing the word of the consecration would improve the liturgy of the Eucharist, or changing the formula “I absolve you…” in the confessional would bring more people to the sacrament. This is what I don’t understand. With all the challanges facing the Church, why would someone pick this and feel he’s doing some good for the whole Church? It must be prevelant or the CDF wouldn’t have commented on it. Usually, I take a more liberal position, but I’d love to understan the mentality that heads off in this direction and feels he’s doing something for the good of the whole Church which is what I think change should be all about. As far as the people who were baptized this way, thank God we have an infinite loving God because He’s the only one who could understand us or put up with us.
I agree that it makes no sense for anyone to come up with discretionary formulas and that a reasonably wide consensus should be sought. At the same time to declare a baptism invalid because mere words are missing just militates against reason and common sense.
While Chris Ruddy is rightly concerned about avoiding confusion, I think that if you are going to say you are a theologian then you have to deal with objections that reasonable people are making.
While I understand that Joe K may object to certain language, I would appreciate more of a contribution than just mere negative statements.
I continue to be amazed how formulas seem to be important for so many when Jesus railed against formulas and those who traveled land and sea to convert people and made them much worse than themselves.
I’d like to add that this topic has a number of other consequences.
It might be worth recalling that not all baptisms happen around the baptismal font inside Catholic churches, presided over by a priest or deacon. Infants (and unbaptized adults) in danger of death are baptized in hospitals by chaplains, doctors, nurses – whoever is handy and willing to do it in a pinch. So it would seem worthwhile to make some effort to ensure that those who are in a position to perform baptisms in extraordinary circumstances are doing it properly.
(Btw, I believe that canon law states that an infant in danger of death should be baptized, even against the will of those who are responsible for her care (i.e. parents). That the sacrament would be considered efficacious even against the express wishes of the family would seem to cast an interesting light on the role of the community in sustaining the faith of the one being baptized.)
And of course, it is not only Catholics who baptize; we recognize the baptisms of the vast majority of churches and faith communities that self-identify as Christian. Yet groups within some Christian churches have advocated the “Creator / Redeemer / Sustainer” formula (or something similar) to the extent that it has been given official consideration in their governing bodies; whether it has actually been approved by any major denominations, I’m not sure. It seems likely, though, that such formulas have been used as much as, or much more frequently, than has happened in Catholic churches. In that sense, this decision could have important ecumenical consequences, both at the levels of official dialogue, and at the grassroots – after all, anyone who goes to many weddings in Catholic churches knows that Catholics marry non-Catholics pretty frequently.
I think we’re having three different discussions here: whether the CDF is right to ban future use of “Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier,” the validity of past baptisms (attempted baptisms?) using that formula, and the “humor” or “sneering” on previous blog post.
Why did I react negatively to David Gibson’s framing of the issue as “Baptism, shmaptism?” Because I heard it as mockery that makes substantive discussion of the other issues impossible. David asserts that the point of his post was “a pastoral concern for those who underwent these sacraments.” If so, then I would suggest that the attempt at humor failed, precisely on the grounds of pastoral sensitivity. Critique, disagreement, disappointment, anger — any of these responses might take on the CDF pronouncement substantively and advance a discussion. “Baptism, shmaptism” frames the issue as unimportant and trivial.
I realize that blogging by its nature tends to be casual and off-the-cuff. And I use a lot of humor, and sometimes sarcasm, in my own discussions of faith. But it’s important sometimes to take a moment to think before hitting that “submit’ button. Frankly, I expect more from those who are authorized to post on dotCommonweal than I do from the commenters, who don’t always care to edit their reactions in the interests of promoting useful discussion.
On a related note, I also react negatively to the imprecision of statements like “The Vatican last year announced that homosexuals could not be ordained priests.” That’s a careless summary of the actual Vatican document, which barred ordination for men who are “actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.” As a church we still are trying to figure out what this language means. I’m certainly not ready to agree with David’s interpretation of the document.
I suppose my basic point is that language matters. As a journalist, I believe David know that, and I generally appreciate his posts. Maybe this is a good reminder for all of us to think twice before posting.
I certainly think Gina is righ tthat there’s lots of discussions here, but …
1) I want to thank Peter Nixon for the thread. I respect his views, though not always agreeing, as thoughtful and pointed. On this one, i Think Bill M. raised the major unanswered question, except for a variety of opinions…(including my own);
2) a bigger issue is the Commonweal bliog and contributions to it Clearly there will be diversity bu tassertions about “confusion” by the intelligent folk who post here carry litle weight in this corner.
3)I’m also withB ill on the issue of “intellectual modesty.” One of my old work buddies and i used to kid abou the TWKB’s (Those who Know Better0 on the job, While I obviously appreciate the scholarship that many bring here, on a given issue, it doesn’t matter which way they wear their collar or where they teach or how they (as some have done) claim to be “experts’ about a given topic gives them a deckive word,
4) A major complaint I’ve had at VOTF discussions and I’m sensing it here is how easily folk are “offenbded” by those who disagree with something they hold dear. This is a particular Church infantilization problem on matters that are not at the heart of faith . In my heart of hearts, as I read sometimes, i’m tempted to write “get a life”, Gina, and submit, but your advbice is correcct there.
5) At Mass tonigt Fr. Visitor was handicapped, using his cane to gimp around and giving a wonderfu; sermon on how this was a sign of God’s love. Really great stuff with many hugs afterwatrd.
But, after Communion , only the deacon (no more Eucharistic ministers) could clean the vessels. Fr.had to sit – he could hardly stand after distributing Communion. What would we do if ther ewas no deacon to clean up? I know … rules and regs on the liturgy.
I’m sure someone has a wonderfiul answer beyond common sense.
And so back to the poor folks who may or may not be baptized. They may be deeply committed to and knowledgebale in faith, but what is the pastoral practical result of the curial and USCCB brilliancies?
If that’s not resperctful enough, whatever one’s opinion. then maybe we don’t need to converse here.
P.S. Again also thanks to David Gibson
Bless you, Gina, there have been many calls for us all to come reason together (mine included), but they generally come to nothing, so don’t get your hopes up.
The immediacy of a blog captures gut reactions, opinions-in-progress and off-the-cuff smart alecky remarks. Moreover, some people, at least in the past, have entered conversations as deliberate irritants because they dislike the magazine and view The Average Commonweal Reader as an enemy of the church.
While the the “utter s***” remark on David Gibson’s original post was a new low, probably most of us have had something similar in mind even as we were crafting (slightly) more polite responses. Though I have to say I’ve rarely seen a topic alienate so quickly people who normally tolerate each other quite well.
In any case, I find it increasingly unlikely that the blog medium will lead to the kind of decorous idea exchange such as you describe. I think this blog is doing pretty well to elicit comments from people who are generally well-informed, care about their faith, and are not discernably drunk, high or insane.
Others may disagree, of course, and will! Back to hibernation mode for me.
Oh, dear, I made it sound like David Gibson used the words “utter s***.” It was an individual responding to his post. Apologies to David.
Jim Pauwels ==
You say, “A pronouncement of an invalid Trinitarian formula would lack the right form (I think – these things aren’t very intuitive for me). So even though the intention would have been there, it’s not enough.”
About the right forms — maybe the notion of contemporary linguistic analysts of “performative utterances” might help you. They have analysed many,many different sorts of uses of words besides just making statements, asking questions, and giving orders. One of the most important uses is what they call performative utterances — those uses of words which not only *say* something but *do* something in the very saying of the words or signifying actions. Perhaps the most important secular kind is the signing of contracts. When you put your name to a contract you *do* something — you bind your self to do something in return for something else. When you say “I do” when you marry, you bind yourself to your bride. And notice this — for many important kinds of perf. utterances, there are standard formulations, e.g, “I do”, and “so help me God” when you take an oath and commit yourself not to lie. Aquinas analysed the sacraments as just this sort of use of words and/or actions — the formulas of the words/actions not only *say* something, they *do* something, e,g,, bring Christ among us physically,
Can a community have more than one form of the words of a given perf. utterance ? Yes, but it is not always wise. The legal profession, for instance, has learned from vast experience that there are great advantages to having standard forrms of words in contracts for the simple reason that when you use a standard form there is less doubt as to your intention. Charles Jones might sign a contract as “Chuckie Jones” but it would not be a standard form, and some might even take his intention to be a joke. .
There was more at issue in the CDF’s pronouncement, no doubt, than merely sticking to a standard form so the formula might not become ambiguous. What is most important, it seems to me, is that if the sense of the meanings of the new formula does not convey the *original* meanings, what is being promised might be something different from what was promised using the old formula. If those meanings are essentially different, then the baptismal promise risks not being made.
—————————————————-
Concerning God the male == to say that “God” means *only* something male or that He is *neither* male nor female is not consistent with the teaching of Aquinas. For him, God is *both* male and female (using those words analogously, of course). He is like *all* of His positive creations, and these positive creatures include both male and female, *Why* Yahweh/the Father usually chose to refer to Himself as male in the Scriptures, well, that’s different question. Perhaps it has something to do with what *we* are, not with what *He* is.
Hello folks,
I’ve read through the two threads and although I usually agree with Peter on this issue I disagree. I do not think the previous thread was that disrespectful, however its length as this has also now become did deserve a new start.
But that is not the main point I want to make. I am going to go out on a limb and say that I think everyone has missed the real story. I think you have missed the forest for the trees. Deciussion has centered on the validity of the right/words used and as most have pointed out especially in the first thread there are good reasons to state that the baptisms were and remain valid.
So what is going on here? In my humble opinion this is really a issue of power and branding to put it in its most stark secular terms and in those terms makes no sense.
Being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is our brand. The CDF is saying don’t mess with it. Okay that is valid. But why has that message been muddied with the invalidity of the sacrament a message that is sure to cause turmoil for those small minority who have under gone in good faith such a baptism.
Look at it this way if a group say of mid-western McDonald’s were to start selling bowls of chili and promoting it in some fashion as the “New McDonald’s” we all know the Head Office Congregation for the Protection of Our Brand (CPOB) would quietly bring pressure to bare to end the new form of McDonalds sacramental burgers would immediately stop.
They certainly would not go out and say hi everyone your McDonalds burger meat was invalid; you didn’t have a real Big Mac.
So why has the Church leadership not chosen to quietly close down the practice of this Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier brand of baptism and instead made headlines with their decision. the real reason they used this method is chilling in its implications. It too is about sending a message, a message of power conform or else. it is a message first and foremost being sent to priests and bishops who permit alternates not congruent with the central brand. It is a message that puts the brand ahead of the laity who can be sacrificed as little more than collateral damage.
In my opinion that is the forest and although I’ve enjoyed the learned discussion within both threads about the trees I think the real issue in this case is far worse.
Perhaps we can all benefit in reviewing the history and theology of baptism in Richard P. MCbrien’s monumental work “Catholicism.” He spells it out there better than any of us have done here. Part of the problem may be an insufficient awareness of this history. In his preface to this unique book, Ted Heburgh wrote:
“All too few Christians read theological books today, and I beieve that is the reason why so many Christians are uninfomed, lukewarm, and just plain confused as they face an ever more complicated world. “Catholicism” is a book that any intelligent Anglican, Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian can and should read with great profit for the mind as well as for the soul.”
To: TWKB
What is the greater offense humorous comment or sanctimonious comment?
Margaret,
I am disappointed that those who were offended by the other thread have chosen not to comment on the consequences and ramifications of the pronouncement from the CDF. Particularly confusing is, on the one hand, the unequivocal statement from the CDF that those baptized with one of the two variant formulas are not Christians and must be baptized in forma absoluta, and, on the other, the “clarification” from the USCCB that the only people who are affected are those in which a witness recalls that one of the incorrect formulas was used. The “clarification” implies, to me anyway, that “what you don’t know can’t hurt you,” and that the efficacy of baptism is purely a matter of belief, not reality.
On the necessity of precision in words, Max Beerbohm wrote:
“With blunting of precision in language, don’t you know, comes muddiness in political policy, in morality, in conduct”.
On the theological background of the Trinitarian formula, a good study is Fr. Pesarchick’s THE TRINITARIAN FOUNDATION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY.
And [to repeat] Our Lord’s exact language [Matthew 28:19] “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. …”.
Here are some other views from the blogosphere.
Father John Hunwicke, SSC, points out that if Catholic baptism by these formulas is invalid, Protestant/Anglican baptism is also. He sees the CDF ruling having an negative impact on ecumenism.
Gabriel,
Of course, Jesus presumably spoke Aramaic, the Gospels were written in Greek, and you are quoting one of a number of possible English translations, so it is difficult, strictly speaking, to call Matthew 28:19 “Our Lord’s exact words.”
Even if Matthew 28:19 is an accurate translation of the very words of Jesus, he is not necessarily dictating a liturgical formula. W. F. Albright and C.S. Mann in the Anchor Bible volume Matthew say
It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” Jesus as Lord and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished. The evangelist, whom we must at least allow to have been familiar with the baptismal customs of the early Messianic Community, may well have added to baptizing them his own summary of what baptism accomplished.
As Albright and Mann say, early Christians baptized in the name of Jesus. They could not have (knowingly at least) baptized in the name of a triune God, since the appropriate theology hadn’t developed yet. John L. McKenzie says, in Dictionary of the Bible:
None of this is to say that the CDF was incorrect in their ruling. It’s just to say that it would be an oversimplification to argue we should follow the liturgical formula Jesus gave in the Gospel of Matthew, which best represents the doctrine of the trinity. The earliest Christians apparently did not use this formula (which argues against it being a formula dictated by Jesus), and there was no doctrine of the trinity at the time.
“I am disappointed that those who were offended by the other thread have chosen not to comment on the consequences and ramifications of the pronouncement from the CDF.”
David N. Exactly.
David Nickol: I think an even stronger conclusion follows from your claim that the early baptismal formula could not have been an expression of Trinitarian theology because that theology had not yet developed. The stronger conclusion is this: the words clearly meant something else! So many have written on this thread about how important words are, but they demonstrate not even the slightest concern about how the words would have been understood within the early churches. We are only told that it is important that we know what the Catholic Church now teaches about those words. This is strange.
I refer again to the Didache, at text written far earlier than the creeds. It does use this formula, but it also makes no effort to differentiate the use of “son” “child” or “servant” as applied to David and Jesus. If anything, it suggests that David is the more important figure, and Jesus came to reveal David again. Psalm 2:7 gives a very clear expression of “son” of God.
Peter,
Thank you for the thoughtful post.
As for the other thread, it reminds me of the old saw about the man who kills his parents and begs the court to have mercy on him, an orphan.
It is very easy to have all these criticisms about the CDF, but the idea that this statement was made without considering all of the issues and concerns raised in these criticisms can’t be serious. Indeed, I suspect that the reason this statement was made so long after the problem arose (and was settled for the most part) was because of them. Would that the priests and communities that adopted this politically correct formula exercised the same prudence there would not have been any reason for the statement in the first place. What if some priest or order took it upon themselves to baptize in the name of Richie, Ralph, and Pottsie? Which formulae will be acceptable and which will not? Authority is not about power, but right and responsibility. Those with no right, and therefore no authority, changed the sacramental rite to please there own sensibilities, and now we are told that those with both the right and the responsibility, and therefore the authority, acted rashly and “non-pastorally.” Seems to me the criticism is misplaced. Like blaming the judge for a harsh sentence.
“I am disappointed that those who were offended by the other thread have chosen not to comment on the consequences and ramifications of the pronouncement from the CDF.”
I started to reply with “Amen, exactly the problem,” then realized that I am probably one of these being castigated here. In fact, I agree with David N. regarding the importance of the consequences and ramifications of the CDF answer. My problem with David G.’s framing post is that we can’t explore those issues unless we start with some kind of agreement about the importance of baptism. Otherwise why should the ramifications be of any concern to us?
But enough meta-process — back to the issues we should be discussing.
Let’s assume arguendo, based on the arguments in preceding comments on both threads, that the “Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier” terminology is problematic, that it indicates at least the potential for different understandings of the Trinity. At the same time, based on personal experience, at least some of those who use this formula do indeed understand it in a manner consistent with basic Christian trinitarian theology.
What would be a good pastoral/theological resolution to this problem?
I’m wondering here about the differences in the ideas of licitness, validity, and effectiveness. Licitness is basically lawfulness, conformity with Church norms. But illicit liturgical actions may still be valid. We presume the potential for effectiveness from validity. However, given the abundance of God’s grace and the active presence of the Spirit working in the world, we know that grace abounds outside of valid sacramental actions. In other words, invalidity does not necessarily equal ineffectiveness.
Can we devise a good general approach on how to deal with past C/R/S baptisms? Or should they be dealt with on an individual basis?
Sean: By now, it has been pretty well established that the root concern of both threads, and the concern that gave rise, I suspect, to David Gibson’s strong initial reaction, is the decision to invalidate any baptism that used an incorrect formula. Your post does nothing to address this issue. Richie, Ralph, and Pottsie (I would have said Fonz, Richie, and Pottsie, myself) is a cheap shot at the issue of proper baptismal formula, and issue no one is really debating much…
Except me! Just an addition from my post prior to Sean’s.
1) If words really matter
2) If the original intent of baptismal formulas matters
3) If something other than trinitarian theology was intended with original uses of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”
4) If changing baptismal formulas in word or intention invalidates the baptism
5) If intending trinitarian theology with the use of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is the intention of most Christian baptisms since around the third or fourth centuries
6) Then it is unlikely that most baptisms after the first few centuries are valid
7) Therefore, almost none of us are Christian
Just to be clear. I think this is an absurd conclusion, but I am not sure how the logic of the current debate gets around it.
Hello All,
Some of David Nickol’s posts on this very interesting thread have reminded me of a question I have wondered about for some time. Perhaps others here have considered this question as well. I’m sure that some of you will be able to clear me up instantly.
The question: Why does the Roman Catholic Church recognize baptism in Protestant churches?
The reason I find myself perplexed here is that in the one hand, I think the Catholic Church on occasion goes out of its way to emphasize that communion, orders and marriages in Protestant churches are not recognized as valid by the Church. But on the other hand, the Church not only recognizes baptisms in Protestant churches but is even reluctant to baptize converts who are unsure whether they were baptized earlier in life in a Protestant church. Clearly there must be some relevant difference between baptism and communion, orders and marriage. But I don’t know what it is.
As one of the quoted passages in one of David’s posts points out, if some Catholic baptisms may now have been declared invalid because of the use of improper form, then evidently some Protestant baptisms must now be invalid as well. So perhaps some converts who were baptized before will now be able to be baptized in the Catholic Church if they can prove their Protestant baptisms were invalid because of use of improper form?
Sean,
Your analogies make no sense. The priests who have been baptizing with the two variant formulas have not been disciplined, nor are they the ones critical of the CDF in the two threads here. The entire burden of the CDF ruling is on those who had the misfortune to be invalidly baptized.
A more apt analogy might be a pharmaceutical company with many plants who discovers that some plants have been distributing a harmless but ineffective version of an important vaccine. So the company announces, “Anybody who received the ineffective vaccine needs to receive the effective vaccine.”
And no one has yet addressed what appears to me to be a serious discrepancy between what the Vatican says and what the spokesman for the USCCB says:
The Vatican is saying some people only think they are Christians, only think they are baptized, and only think they are married. And Father Weinandy is saying, in effect, it’s no big deal, and if no witness remembers an incorrect formula was used, the whole thing makes no difference.
I suppose someone from Darfur whose village just got wiped out, or from Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan….looked at this thread they might wonder…
Yet we do attempt to communicate and frustration is a natural since all of us express it. Would we could say to each other what Sir Nathaniel said to Holofernes in Loves labour Lost:
“I praise God for you, sir: your reasons at dinner
have been sharp and sententious; pleasant without
scurrility, witty without affection, audacious without
impudency, learned without opinion, and strange with-
out heresy. ”
At the end of the exchange there is this exchange between Holofernes and a person name “Dull.”
“HOLOFERNES
Via, goodman Dull! thou hast spoken no word all this while.
DULL
Nor understood none neither, sir.”
That is for those who are reading and choose not to comment for whatever reason.
Yet I believe most of us have good will. Dialogue is challenging. And we are certainly the envy (or pity) of those dodging bullets and scraping for food.
“3) If something other than trinitarian theology was intended with original uses of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”…”
A traditional understanding is that Trinitarian theology grew out of the formula, as a plant from a seed. It first manifested in the baptismal inquiries that developed into the Apostle’s Creed, which in turn became the foundation for the Nicene Creed.
If this is so, trinitarian theology was in some sense intended, or more properly, what was intended is made more explicit in trinitarian theology. The formula is probably more important than the theology, giving a stronger reason not to change it.
Your line of argument is probably more important to LDS baptisms than to this current question about substitituting newer names for the three St Matthew used.
(As a side note, the arguments against Creator… that talk about function and exclusivity need to consider that the Father is Spirit.)
Meanwhile the bishops are still stonewalling.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1249658~Marci_A__Hamilton__Killing_abuse_suit_bill_puts_children_at_risk.html
Jim: I think you accurately describe the “traditional” position. Yet, it remains the case that when the words were used in the first century Christian communities, there is much stronger reason to believe that they were being used with traditional Jewish understandings. Jews at the time were known to call God Father; Son of God was an ancient title, and Spirit of God (Shekina) was quite well known. If we had to make a case for what these words meant to Jews in the decades after the death of Jesus, I think the case is much stronger that they were understood in a non-Trininitarian sense. Of course, two hundred or so years later, ask a Hellenistic Gentile who never spoke with a Jew for more than a few minutes what the terms mean, and it is not surprising that new meanings enter the scene.
The Church is free to argue for whatever theological development it wishes to proclaim. I simply was having a difficult time getting past the irony of some placing so much emphasis on the words of the traditional formula, when the odds are extraordinarily high that what those words mean now is not what they meant then.
Joe,
My analogy was not a cheap shot but an attempt to demonstrate a principle by an extreme example. The principle is that those that would say the words or form don’t matter, don’t mean it. What they really mean is THESE words in THIS form are OK because I think they are close enough in their opinion. Since the Church teaches us that sacraments are effective and that the form does matter, clearly, at some point a departure from the words and form must affect the validity. The question is who has the authority to say which forms are valid.
If I baptize with Cherry Coke in the name of Howard, Richie, and the Fonz (on further consideration that seems more apt), who are you to say this is invalid? So long as I have the right intent, isn’t that what’s important.
Your arguments boil down to, no one really knows what the original words meant to those who heard them. Where does that leave us? I would rather rely on the centuries-old wisdom of the Church that Christ established than the politically motivated whims of a few late 20th century progressive Christians.
As for handling the priests that were doing this. What would you have done to them? They were, at least in Boston, severly rebuked and made to stop the practice. Is something more required? Even if it is, what does that have to do with this statement?
David,
OK – what should the CDF have done? If they say the form has no effect on validity, then why was it stopped? Also, what stops anyone from starting to use it, or some other form that suits their sensibilities again? What standard should they use?
Joe:
I have been puzzling over your interpretation of the Didache on the relation of David to Jesus. Does not the “vine of David, your servant, which you have revealed through Jesus, your servant” in 8:2 refer to “the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus your servant” in 8:3? The parallel structure of the two elements would suggest so. The Greek does not say son, but servant (sometimes translated as child). Cannot an argument be made that David and Jesus are not equal in this sense, but rather that the meaning of the vine of David becomes clear only in what God has revealed in Jesus, as much of the typological interpretation of scripture in the early Church claims?
In his Sacra Pagina commentary on Matthew, Dan Harrington, underscores the suspicion that the formula originates with Jesus and suggests that the text may have been shaped at this point by the experience of the early Church, by which he means by an early baptismal formula like what is found in the Didache. He does not say anything about the theology of the formula, but I would agree that by this time it probably has not achieved the fuller understanding that developed over the next three centuries.
For all takers:
I was discussing this whole matter with one of my colleagues, who asked what ever happened to the notion of ecclesia supplet? Was that not a traditional understanding of how the Church rectifies a defect in the administration of the sacraments? My Canon Law is rusty, so I am not sure that “the Church supplies” refers to anything more than jurisdiction. Does anyone know if it covers matter and form?
What Sean said:
“Your arguments boil down to, no one really knows what the original words meant to those who heard them. Where does that leave us? I would rather rely on the centuries-old wisdom of the Church that Christ established than the politically motivated whims of a few late 20th century progressive Christians.”
What Joe said:
Yet, it remains the case that when the words were used in the first century Christian communities, there is much stronger reason to believe that they were being used with traditional Jewish understandings. Jews at the time were known to call God Father; Son of God was an ancient title, and Spirit of God (Shekina) was quite well known. If we had to make a case for what these words meant to Jews in the decades after the death of Jesus, I think the case is much stronger that they were understood in a non-Trininitarian sense. Of course, two hundred or so years later, ask a Hellenistic Gentile who never spoke with a Jew for more than a few minutes what the terms mean, and it is not surprising that new meanings enter the scene.
This is a far cry from “No one really knows what the original words mean.” Indeed, there is a strong case that we know that they meant something different from the meaning we profess today. Is it too much to ask for a direct refutation rather than a “well you might as well have been saying baptize with cherry coke in the name of Richie et al.”?
This is meant to imply that a carefully thought out analysis was completely crazed when, in fact, the crazed hyperbole is found only in the response and not in the original argument. It’s a complete non-response, and the key words are “I would rather believe . . .”
“My Canon Law is rusty, so I am not sure that “the Church supplies” refers to anything more than jurisdiction. Does anyone know if it covers matter and form?”
Alan, glad you brought this up. This phrase applied at a time when we believed that every word coming out of Rome was the truth. So there. We now see (except for a minority) that the magisterium if flawed in many ways and that the promise of Jesus to be with his church is mainly with the people who flock to him in every age. God always supplies, thank you, the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding.
The magisterium can indeed be helpful when it worked with Paul and Peter and the Council of Jerusalem where the leader worked to make the lives of God’s people less burdensome rather than the Pontifex Maximus mentality which Benedict XVI insists on retaining.
The pope is coming to America and the usual brouhaha is afloat with people vying for tickets. Yet he is coming to a Catholic land which has more questions than they ever had and does not appreciate the CDF mentality that Vatican II and even Paul VI militated against.
I don’t know what the official doctrine is on this, but when I went through RCIA, the priest said that a prior Protestant baptism would count, but ONLY if it was “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” because those were the magic words (so to speak). If that’s the doctrine, then that is yet another indication that the right formulation is (for whatever reason) a very, very important thing.
To paraphrase Gordon Gekko: I sneered because it was sneerable, I expressed contempt because it was contemptible … this is supposed to be an intellectual web? Then let’s be absolutely serious and intellectual here: exactly who believes that the loving God of the New Testament actually cares what exact words we use to baptize someone? If the intent was to baptize someone, then I believe that person is baptized in the eyes of God–otherwise you give indiviudals the power to negate God’s loving purpose through the careless use of certain “innapropriate” words? No one has suggested that their was malicious intent in the gender-neutral phrases, so even if they might seem silly and unnecessary to some they were used with the best intentions … or are we to believe, as others here have noted, that Christianity is just magic (ala harry Potter, where certain words–like Voldemort–have such intrinsic power that we must fear them or use them sparringly?)
Sean,
The ruling from the CDF declares invalid only the baptism formulas using Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier or Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer. It seems to me the option of using some other form is still open. So if baptism is valid only with one formula (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), I am not sure why they didn’t say so.
Also, I don’t understand why they did not tell people what to do. So far, everyone in this thread is avoiding all discussion of the consequences of declaring an unknown number of persons as non-Christians. If it actually matters whether people are validly baptized or not, shouldn’t there be some practical advice as to how deal with the unknown number of persons who think they are baptized but are not? The only official comment we have so far regarding the practical consequences of the CDF ruling is from the USCCB spokesperson who says, in effect, if nobody remembers, it doesn’t matter.
Not that it is a real issue here, but Cherry Coke™ is largely water and could certainly be used for baptism in place of pure water if no pure water was available. I dimly remember being taught that in an emergency, any liquid may be used, and that in one case and emergency baptism using antifreeze from a car radiator was deemed valid. Antifreeze contains no water at all. There are several references to that on respectable-looking websites, although I suppose it could be a kind of Catholic urban legend.
Alan: Certainly, the interpretation you offer is plausible. However, I do not see a strong case for Jesus being understood as expanding of fulfilling the vine of David. Rather, I think 8:3 is a reference back to the ways of life discussed at the beginning of the Didache (this part, including the ways of death is almost certainly an earlier Jewish text placed within the Didache and given a Christian interpretation). Also, as I understand Jewish messianic expectation, there was never a sense that the messianic line needed anything added to it, only that it return in the Messiah.
As I understand it, one of the difficulties that Christianity had in convincing Jews that Jesus was the Messiah was the there were clear messianic expectations that needed to be fulfilled, and as time past and these expectations were not fulfilled, then the plausibility of the Christian claims for Jews was reduced. I realize that you know all of this. I only mention it because I get nervous applying Christian understandings of “messiah” to what still seems a context (namely, the Didache) where Jewish understandings are still at work.
Of course, that might be precisely the debate. Does the Didache illustrate a development of messianic theology in the direction of Christianity, or does it still indicate a Jewish understanding of messianic theology now applied to Jesus?
Your question has convinced me to go to Amazon and purchase Aaron Milavec’s 1,000 page commentary on the Didache (unless you tell me that you think this would be money wasted!).
Joe:
First, a clarification. The references should be 9:2-3 and not 8:2-3 (I have never mastered typing in these little boxes). I think you probably knew that.
The debate on how Jewish or not would turn on an early or a late dating of the text. Although, I would not agree with the typological interpretation, the context of the eucharist in ch.9 seems to stress the importance of the wine and bread in relation to Jesus. Also, I wonder, given the composite nature of the Didache as a compendium of traditions and teachings, whether “life” in 9:3 can refer all the way back to the Way of Life.
I am not familiar with Milavec’s work so I cannot comment on its value.
Just a few comments that I hope will be of use. First. the CDF statement that a person who is unknowingly not validly baptized cannot be validly ordained does not say that this person is in jeopardy of losing his soul. He is not a Catholic, but that does not imply that he is in sin.
The Church and its sacraments exist to keep available in this world the efficacy of Jesus’ redemptive work. God is not limited to working through the Church and its sacraments. Strictly speaking, there need not be a Church, but we believe that He wants it to exist. If it is to be effective, then who its members are and who its ministers are must be publicly determinable. What’s in a person’s heart is not publicly determinable and so is insufficient. I readily agree that, though the CDF decree in question here is accurate, it is pastorally inept. It fails to make clear that it is not saying that the people it affects have sinned. It should have made clear that the foolish ministers who acted invalidly are the culprits.
A different point. As John Henry Newman, among others, has said and as history confirms Christian doctrine has developed over the centuries through the work of its thinkers and the prayerful reflection of its people. Accordingly, there’s no reason for us treat the status of the understanding of Jesus’ message that the earliest Christians had as so normative that we either simply repeat them or we show ourselves to be unfaithful to them. To recognize this development is to recognize that, first and foremost, we receive our faith through a Tradition that includes the scriptures but is not limited to those sacred texts. It also includes the fruit of prayerful reflection down through the ages that the community has endorsed as authentic.
Alan: Just for my own edification, what do you mean when you write, “I would not agree with the typological interpretation”? (also, glad you clarified the chapter issue, my eyes just went right to the Eucharist chapter and verses, and I didn’t bother to double check).
Bernard: I have always thought the Catholic church to be correct in its insistence on the need for Tradition. The role of a church should be to proclaim and to explain, and in both cases I think something more than scripture is necessary. However, I do not see good arguments for believing that the Tradition is correct. Also, I do not really think that Tradition has been meaningfully endorsed, if by endorsed you mean, chosen after compelling alternatives have been considered. For most Catholics through the centuries, Tradition has been the only game in town, so of course they endorse it. Also, the kind of historical-critical analysis that has been so dynamic for many decades now has raised issues that I think have only just begun to sink in.
I find the argument made by many that the Holy Spirit has guided tradition either a fancy way to say, “We are right because God says so” or it is entirely question begging, since the issue then becomes, “What would Spirit driven change look like?”
Joe,
You seem to me to be arguing for my position, and yet coming to the opposite conclusion. So forgive me if I sound equally confusing to you.
The formula predates theological speculation on the trinity. It can be used with, for instance, a prechristian Israelite theology, as well as with trinitarian. To me that means the formula is more fundamental than the theology, and a substitute based on advanced trinitarian theology may be inappropriate.
I guess I do not get why you would think that our inability to know the original intent of the formula means that we can use something else.
Joe:
As a practitioner of the historical method, I am challenged by typological interpretations because of how they rest on a unified view of Scripture that can reduce the Hebrew Bible simply to a praeparatio evangelium, and because they tend to untether a text from its own history. That is not to say that I think it wrong for Christians to interpret the Old Testament for themselves, or to make connections between texts. I do believe in inter-textuality. I just think that today it is very hard to presuppose the kind of “divine economy” that Irenaeus presupposed the Scripture to disclose. Also, I worry that people who do not know the history of early Christian biblical interpretation may too easily conclude to the view that the Hebrew Bible has value only in relation to the New Testament. The possibility of supercessionism increases when typological/allegorical interpretations are accepted uncritically.
Jim: I don’t think I ever explicitly did argue for anything else. I was simply trying to point out that an argument from the meaning and importance of words was a bit ironic in this case. As for the position you propose, I still do not see a reason other than tradition for exclusively using the traditional formula; that is, I do not see why the Christian churches should forever and always be bound by this formula.
Alan: Thanks. Some day I would enjoy knowing your thoughts on the status of messianic fulfillment texts, but, that is likely best put off for another thread. Although, if you have any particularly good books to suggest on the topic, I suspect our fellow dotCommonwealers would not object to your noting them here. New Testament and early Christian studies are something of a hobby of mine. There is not enough time in between my ethics and public policy work to become a pro such as yourself, but I do like to keep as up on the discussion as I can.
Joe:
That would take us far afield. The book is not a problem. Joseph Fitzmyer’s latest: He Who Is To Come will tell you all you need to know about those texts and more.
Alan
This is worth opening for no other reason than the comments at the end:
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=51289362-204e-45d0-8d5f-f55fdc246e3f
Joe Petit: re “question begging:” Does available empirical evidence PROVE that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in its articulation of the Tradition? Of course not. That’s why accepting the faith is not the drawing of a conclusion from a set of premises. Is there sufficient empirical evidence to make a profession of faith rationally defensible, i.e., not logically absurd and with some some plausible interpretation of the available evidence? Yes.
Furthermore, Tradition, in the theological sense, has a “technical” meaning, one which I am not prepared to formulate, but that theologians can and have (see e.g., Congar’s work for Vatican II). If you want to challenge Tradition, that’s what you have to challenge. The term ‘Tradition’ in this context doesn’t mean just some collection of beliefs, convictions, etc. that happen to have been held by some community for a long time. There have been all sorts of traditions, but by definition, there is only one Catholic Tradition. Has it been challenged? Obviously. Has it been developed? Again, obviously. Has it been refuted , in whole or in substantial part? No. It remains completely intellectually respectable to profess faith in it.
Does this mean that you, or anyone, is unreasonable to decline to profess faith in it? No.
But when properly understood, there’s no question begging.
Bernard: Very well put. So long as Tradition is not presented as self-authenticating, I agree that appealing to Tradition is not question begging. I confess, however, that it is not always clear to me that some who appeal to Tradition are not doing so such that Tradition is, in fact, being understood as self-authenticating.
As was pointed out, there are many threads interwoven here, but I’d like to touch on a frew apart from was the formula invalid or is it best practice to use the traditional formula, etc.
I have some other questions:
1) Is a curial decision “Tradition?” How broadly does one expect decsions by leadership to be Tradition?
Does resorting to a guiodance of the Holy Spirit in curial decsion making beg the question? Resort to a deus ex machina? Even asssure “careful consideration?”
2) We have been discusing lately the drift of many from the Church (Pew report) and lots of very human Roman utterances (communion of the tongue, kneeling and, possibly valisity invalidity of certain forms with broad applications.)
In talking about what Catholics deserve, don’t they deserve a far less muddied decsion than this?
3)We’re well aware of the humanity of hieracha;l actions. Today i saw an open letter from victims of Irish clerical sex abuse (“Betrayal”) excoriating the hierarchy for their denials, secrecy and lack of accountability.
While some may think that analogies to other beauracracies (e.g, political/governmental0 should not be made of Church leadership, isn’t it fair to look at the impact of the Roman beaurocracies/dicasteries on the folks they say they serve?
Finally, there is a question that underlays the start of this thread – respect. Do we have the same idea or even a clear idea of what respect should be shown to curial/epicopla utterances? It’s nota question of the righ tof those folks to make such utterances or that ther eposition entirtles them to a real hearing, but what weight to be given thereto and what treatment they should receive if one finds them inept?
I guess those who think the Spirit is automatically at work tend to give far greater respect and those who look at the feet of clay that all of us, including Church office holders have, tend to look at that quite differently.
There’s two problems here;
One is legalism – an interesting article by a Dr ;Paul Martin showed up on the VOTF website today saying that faith structures that operate on the basis of command and obedience undermine spirituality.
It’s been noted here and I must agree with John B. that what’s at stake here is a power/obedience decision.
A second is the question of how much is the teaching Church also a learning , listening Church?
If decsions are top-down, made in secrecy, etc. how good a chance is there they’ll be good decsions careful of the neds of the Faithful?
This question relates to some of the complainsts about clericalism that is often heard.
At any rate, in much of our world, beaurocratic decisions that those who are impacted by it feel inept, are often met with satire or even ridicule – but that may not show lack of respect, but a deeper caring for the institution and what it needs to be about.
I suspect we’ll go on arguing about the form, but I think both Peter and David did a service in starting these threads.
This thread is going to fade away without anyone attempting to reconcile the statements of the CDF and the USCCB.
CDF: Anyone baptized with one of the invalid formulas is not really baptized at all and must be baptized. If two people baptized with the formula have married, they are not in fact married and must be baptized and married.
USCCB: If nobody remembers the invalid formula being used, there’s nothing to worry about. Only in rare cases does the Church consider a baptism invalid.
David,
How can they be reconciled? I think the USCCB recognized the scope of the problem created by CDF and tried to do some damage control. What if the CDF statement “confused” the faithful and a host of people demanded from their pastors to know if they were validly baptized. Short of viewing family videos or audio tapes from the day, I do not see how anyone could really know. The presumption is that unless a witness can come forward and attest that one of the formulae in question was actually used, ecclesia supplet.
Do you think any American ordinaries have written to CDF asking them not to do something like that again?
I’ve quoted this before and it bears repeating:
“He who travels in the barque of Peter had better not look too closely into the engine room.” Msgr. Ronald Knox
Regarding this current brouhaha:
“This is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.” Attributed to Tallyerand
Alan,
I think, as you mentioned above might be the case, ecclesia supplet applies only to jurisdiction. At least if this is reliable (a case involving absolution, not baptism).
http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/02/we-need-to-be-careful-with-notion-of.html
I think many of us assume that God would not deprive people of something they would otherwise receive if their baptisms (and subsequent other sacraments received) were invalid. But that isn’t the message being sent by the CDF, and it raises the question of whether sacraments are actually necessary.
David mentions that Our Lord [you know Him - the Lord God Almighty - the Lord of Hosts] spoke Aramaic [we suppose]. What effect does this have on the words translated as “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”? That seems to me a fairly direct order from on high.
[NB: Baptize in name of Jesus, or in the name of Christ, comes from Peter who was not giving an order].
[The question of the validity of marriages between persons who were "baptized" using the incorrect formula does not arise. Marriage is a sacrament performed by the couple, and blessed by the Church].
The discussion about the confusion apparently sown by the USCCB stirs thoughts about the general confusion sown by councils when not controlled by the pope – organizations relying on consensus rather than the truth.
David,
Thanks much for clarifying my earlier query. What I find interesting in Peters’ post is that nemo dat qoud non habet trumps ecclesia supplet, but in the end we can trust that Deus providet. Fascinating indeed. I agree with your take on the whole matter. As one of my professors once said “God is at least half as nice a guy as I am.”
Gabriel,
I do not think there is anything about the Matthew citation that indicates that it was composed in any language other than Greek. As another one of my professors said “The problem of the Aramaic Matthew is a lot like the problem of the white whale. Everybody claims to have seen it, but no one is certain that they have seen the same thing.”
Unless a marriage is between tow baptized folk, it is not a “christian marriage” and can be set aside (privlege of the faith.) So baptism does matter for matrimony.
I refuse to grace the last paragraph of Mr. Austin’s less than insightful comment with another reply.
Update on the origin of the CDF ruling and how widespread the practice may have been. From the most Recent Tablet a piece by Robert Mickens, Mark Brolly, Timothy Lavin, ‘Feminist’ baptismal formulas declared invalid by CDF:
In Australia, Archbishop John Bathersby of Brisbane – an archdiocese which includes the only parish in the country where the practice is believed to have occurred – has asked his liturgical commission to recommend the best way of dealing with pastoral and sacramental issues if anyone in his archdiocese has been affected by the Vatican ruling on invalid baptisms. The archbishop – whose archdiocese is seen as “progressive” – said that although he believed the use of the two outlawed formulae was the exception rather than the rule in his archdiocese, he had been made aware “in the past” that one or other of them had been used in baptismal ceremonies in a Brisbane parish. At the time, he had asked that the practice cease.
The chancellor of the archdiocese, Fr Jim Spence, confirmed that in 2004 an issue had arisen over baptisms in St Mary’s Church, South Brisbane, and priests throughout the archdiocese had been asked to abide by the traditional baptismal formula, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. Fr Spence told The Tablet that he had no idea how many people in Brisbane may be affected by the ruling, and the archbishop had asked people who might be concerned to come forward. The Brisbane church authorities have set up a helpline for parishioners concerned about the validity of baptisms.
Archbishop Bathersby said that he would he provide direction to the archdiocese and the clergy on how to address this matter with the “utmost pastoral sensitivity” once he had been briefed by the CDF. “If either of the formulae indicated by the Congregation was used, the persons affected will need to be treated with great understanding and compassion, especially those people who believed that they or their children had received a valid baptism.”
In the United States, commentators said that the ruling would have little effect because hardly any Catholics have been baptised under the formula, which is sometimes called the “feminist baptism”. Gender-neutral Trinitarian language has been used occasionally for years in some Protestant denominations, though almost never with the open acknowledgement of church hierarchies. Bishops of the US Lutheran Church, for instance, unanimously rejected the gender-neutral formula in 1991.