T
Tinkerbell
Guest
What is the correct terminology when an infant is baptized into the Catholic Church. Is it Baptism or Christening? I thought it was the same thing but a protestant co-worker said it was not.
- Status
S
Scullinius
Guest
The sacrament is called “baptism.” I’ve never been involved with one outside the Church, so maybe it’s only Catholics who refer to the ceremony as a “christening” – which, I’m guessing, has to do with the triune formula (“I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”).
The word “christening” does not appear in the Catechism.
The word “christening” does not appear in the Catechism.
A
alyssa
Guest
baptism…when I hear Christening, I think of boats. :s
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
They have been used interchangeably in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church there is only one Rite and it is Baptism. Christening is a “rite” used in some Protestant churches and does not involve the Baptism of the child.
T
Tinkerbell
Guest
Thanks for all your feedback 
B
BackRowBaritone
Guest
Christening is frequently a Protestant “substitute” for Baptism. It’s a way of naming the child and welcoming him or her into the family and community. It’s important to remember that many Protestant churches do not believe in infant baptism - Baptism is reserved for adults who can make a conscious decision to accept Christ. This comes from their interpretation of Acts 2:38 - "Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Sprit.” (NAB)
Many of our seperated bretheren believe that babies cannot be baptised because they have not committed any sins and they cannot repent. The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of the Jewish rite of circumcision (see Genesis 17:12). The best explanation of Catholic teaching that I know of is in Scott Hahn’s set, “Justification: Becoming a Child of God,” available from Saint Joseph Communications.
I occasionally tease my Episcopalian father, a former Navy officer, about the use of the word “christening.” When my nephew was baptised, I told my Dad, “If you want to name him the U.S.S. Andrew and break a bottle of champaigne over his bow, then we can call it a christening!”
Many of our seperated bretheren believe that babies cannot be baptised because they have not committed any sins and they cannot repent. The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of the Jewish rite of circumcision (see Genesis 17:12). The best explanation of Catholic teaching that I know of is in Scott Hahn’s set, “Justification: Becoming a Child of God,” available from Saint Joseph Communications.
I occasionally tease my Episcopalian father, a former Navy officer, about the use of the word “christening.” When my nephew was baptised, I told my Dad, “If you want to name him the U.S.S. Andrew and break a bottle of champaigne over his bow, then we can call it a christening!”
B
BulldogCath
Guest
**My newborn of three weeks was recently baptised, and after comparing the baptism wordings of both the Traditional and Novus Ordo-Post 1970 Baptism-I decided to have her baptised in both the Novus Ordo and a Traditional Church. I reviewed the wordings of both ceremonies, and the old pre-1970 wordings included exorcism-and to remove all original sin from my baby-with the wording going back to the days when christians were worshipping in the catacombs. The new version has taken much if not all out, and basically is “welcoming the child into the Christian community” as is illustrated below. I have much concern with the changing of the sacrements-as the sacrements were passed on down from our Lord-or were Apostolic in nature. And I did not feel comfortable with “welcoming my child” into the Christian Community, to be “reborn” it just has to many Protestant rings to it. That is my friend, why the confusion exists between Baptism and Chistening because we actually, after Vatican II , changed the sacrement itself! I must say that my sisters and Aunt, were amazed at the beauty and how the Traditonal Priest went step by step in explaining what was taking place.
***Vatican II and the Recovery of RCIA.***http://stfrancisa2.com/baptism/Image56.gif
The years since Vatican II (1961-65) have seen much development in our theology of baptism and in the way baptism is celebrated. Old understandings have been recovered and new ones developed in an attempt to express a theology consistent with our understanding of what it is to be "reborn" in Christ as part of his Church. The restoration of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults “RCIA” has done much to restore to our western theology some key theological insights and understandings that were eclipsed or lost in period when infant baptism was the sole norm.
A Communal Celebration of God’s faithful love!****
The baptism is a sacrament and as such is the outward expression of an inward grace: a celebration of God’s faithful love, made primarily manifest in the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because it is a sacrament, it is a public celebration of the whole Church and it is upon this fundamental understanding that a proper baptismal liturgy must be built. Baptism is a sacrament of faith, but faith needs a community of believers. By Baptism one comes to share in the priesthood of Christ and in his prophetic and royal mission and having become a member of his Church one must profess the faith he has received from God and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God** (Lumen Gentium 11).** Accordingly, not only should baptism be celebrated in a communal liturgical setting: but the very absence or exclusion of this communal dimension truncates the very theology upon which the sacrament is founded.
The contemporary celebration of baptism should be guided by our contemporary understanding of the sacrament. For example,** the General Introduction of Christian Initiation **states the following: *“Baptism is the door to life and to the Kingdom of God…. Baptism is therefore, above all, the sacraments of that faith by which men and women, enlightened by the Spirit’s grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ…. Further, baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity, linking all who have signed by it…… Baptism, the cleansing with water by the power of the living word, washes away every stain of sin, original and personal, makes us sharers in God’s own life and his adopted children…. Those who are baptized are united to Christ in a death like his…… For baptism recalls and effects the paschal mystery itself, because by means of it we pass from the death of sin into life”*The very fact that baptisms should be performed in a parish church highlights the communal dimension and universality of the Christian faith, while avoiding at the same the threat of preferential treatment that exceptions might give. Likewise it puts to rest any over-emphasis on personal piety or Jesus and me theology that can often be bolstered by present day consumerism and individualism. Redemption in Christ is a collective and not a private reality. The Church knows of no other means by which one is assured of entry to the Kingdom of God and so takes great care not to neglect this divine mission to teach and
***Vatican II and the Recovery of RCIA.***http://stfrancisa2.com/baptism/Image56.gif
The years since Vatican II (1961-65) have seen much development in our theology of baptism and in the way baptism is celebrated. Old understandings have been recovered and new ones developed in an attempt to express a theology consistent with our understanding of what it is to be "reborn" in Christ as part of his Church. The restoration of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults “RCIA” has done much to restore to our western theology some key theological insights and understandings that were eclipsed or lost in period when infant baptism was the sole norm.
A Communal Celebration of God’s faithful love!****
The baptism is a sacrament and as such is the outward expression of an inward grace: a celebration of God’s faithful love, made primarily manifest in the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because it is a sacrament, it is a public celebration of the whole Church and it is upon this fundamental understanding that a proper baptismal liturgy must be built. Baptism is a sacrament of faith, but faith needs a community of believers. By Baptism one comes to share in the priesthood of Christ and in his prophetic and royal mission and having become a member of his Church one must profess the faith he has received from God and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God** (Lumen Gentium 11).** Accordingly, not only should baptism be celebrated in a communal liturgical setting: but the very absence or exclusion of this communal dimension truncates the very theology upon which the sacrament is founded.
The contemporary celebration of baptism should be guided by our contemporary understanding of the sacrament. For example,** the General Introduction of Christian Initiation **states the following: *“Baptism is the door to life and to the Kingdom of God…. Baptism is therefore, above all, the sacraments of that faith by which men and women, enlightened by the Spirit’s grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ…. Further, baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity, linking all who have signed by it…… Baptism, the cleansing with water by the power of the living word, washes away every stain of sin, original and personal, makes us sharers in God’s own life and his adopted children…. Those who are baptized are united to Christ in a death like his…… For baptism recalls and effects the paschal mystery itself, because by means of it we pass from the death of sin into life”*The very fact that baptisms should be performed in a parish church highlights the communal dimension and universality of the Christian faith, while avoiding at the same the threat of preferential treatment that exceptions might give. Likewise it puts to rest any over-emphasis on personal piety or Jesus and me theology that can often be bolstered by present day consumerism and individualism. Redemption in Christ is a collective and not a private reality. The Church knows of no other means by which one is assured of entry to the Kingdom of God and so takes great care not to neglect this divine mission to teach and
B
BulldogCath
Guest
After reading this and other literature-I decided to take the safe route and go to both churchs
The Vatican II Rite of Baptism - for Children - "Is it valid?"
by Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.
Is a Revised Baptism Valid?
Before looking at anything in the rites, we must give the word “revised” a serious look. You can revise a man by giving him a good hair cut, or you can revise him by neutering him. The effect in both cases is quite different. Has the revision of the rites of the Church made by order of Vatican II (1962-1965) and executed by Paul VI been the type that made them better or did the revisions neuter the rites - leaving them emasculated and useless? Henry VIII and his henchmen neutered Anglican Orders, thus making them invalid; so decreed Pope Leo XIII.
What is Necessary for a Valid Sacrament?
In the rite for the baptism of children, we find the proper title, “Baptism for Children.” However, when we look at the rite itself we find that the intention is defective. Three things are necessary for a valid sacrament:
Vatican II’s Baptism has a Defective Intention
In the new Vatican II rite of baptism for children, it is not difficult to find how the rite has its intention vitiated. After the profession of faith is over, we read the following (page 234), and it is directed to the parents and godparents. We read, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church, which we have all professed with you?” Then the parents and godparents respond, “It is.” After that the minister of the sacrament goes ahead with the proper matter (water - presumably poured over the skin of the head) and the proper form (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” We have no question on this score. The matter and form are correct in the rite itself.
How the Intention is Defective
At first you may not be aware of the satanic trick in regard to the intention of the rite. The word baptized has lost its true theological meaning. Let me give you an example. When a jeweler asks you, “Do you want to buy a diamond?” you know exactly what the product is. He must sell you a real diamond or be a real cheat. However, we have a new ball game if he asks, “Do you want to buy a diamond made of plastic?” You no longer have a diamond but a chunk of plastic. Why use the word diamond at all? The word plastic so modifies the concept of diamond that the true product no longer exists. The same is true in the Novus Ordro rite question, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church…” You could change the words, baptized in the faith of the Church to (1) introduced in the faith of the Church, or (2) brought in the faith of the Church, or (3) inducted in the faith of the Church, and the like expressions. If the question had stopped at, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized (period)”, we would have no evidence that the intention of the rite is vitiated. However, we have the evidence that the word baptized is modified to ruin it just as the phrase, “Do you want to buy a diamond made of plastic?”
Let me be a little more specific on this question. If you go to a hardware store and order a box of socket wrenches you get the whole box, that is, the entire full box of sockets, ratchets, handles and the like. If you lose or break one socket in your set, you go to the same hardware store and order size so and so and not the whole box, and that is all you get. Well, baptism as it stands in Catholic theology contains four sockets, namely,
Can a non-Catholic be a Sponsor?
We have a further difficulty in regard to the faith of the community in that both sponsors in a new rite Vatican II baptism need not be Catholics. One can be a non-Catholic (of a different faith) who stands as a witness of their common faith. Obviously that is not the faith of the true Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.
The Vatican II Rite of Baptism - for Children - "Is it valid?"
by Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.
Is a Revised Baptism Valid?
Before looking at anything in the rites, we must give the word “revised” a serious look. You can revise a man by giving him a good hair cut, or you can revise him by neutering him. The effect in both cases is quite different. Has the revision of the rites of the Church made by order of Vatican II (1962-1965) and executed by Paul VI been the type that made them better or did the revisions neuter the rites - leaving them emasculated and useless? Henry VIII and his henchmen neutered Anglican Orders, thus making them invalid; so decreed Pope Leo XIII.
What is Necessary for a Valid Sacrament?
In the rite for the baptism of children, we find the proper title, “Baptism for Children.” However, when we look at the rite itself we find that the intention is defective. Three things are necessary for a valid sacrament:
- **proper matter, **
- proper form,
- proper intention.
Vatican II’s Baptism has a Defective Intention
In the new Vatican II rite of baptism for children, it is not difficult to find how the rite has its intention vitiated. After the profession of faith is over, we read the following (page 234), and it is directed to the parents and godparents. We read, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church, which we have all professed with you?” Then the parents and godparents respond, “It is.” After that the minister of the sacrament goes ahead with the proper matter (water - presumably poured over the skin of the head) and the proper form (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” We have no question on this score. The matter and form are correct in the rite itself.
How the Intention is Defective
At first you may not be aware of the satanic trick in regard to the intention of the rite. The word baptized has lost its true theological meaning. Let me give you an example. When a jeweler asks you, “Do you want to buy a diamond?” you know exactly what the product is. He must sell you a real diamond or be a real cheat. However, we have a new ball game if he asks, “Do you want to buy a diamond made of plastic?” You no longer have a diamond but a chunk of plastic. Why use the word diamond at all? The word plastic so modifies the concept of diamond that the true product no longer exists. The same is true in the Novus Ordro rite question, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church…” You could change the words, baptized in the faith of the Church to (1) introduced in the faith of the Church, or (2) brought in the faith of the Church, or (3) inducted in the faith of the Church, and the like expressions. If the question had stopped at, “Is it your will that N. should be baptized (period)”, we would have no evidence that the intention of the rite is vitiated. However, we have the evidence that the word baptized is modified to ruin it just as the phrase, “Do you want to buy a diamond made of plastic?”
Let me be a little more specific on this question. If you go to a hardware store and order a box of socket wrenches you get the whole box, that is, the entire full box of sockets, ratchets, handles and the like. If you lose or break one socket in your set, you go to the same hardware store and order size so and so and not the whole box, and that is all you get. Well, baptism as it stands in Catholic theology contains four sockets, namely,
- forgiveness of original sin,
- if necessary, forgiveness of personal sins (and then comes sanctifying grace),
- the placing of an indelible character on the soul, and
- the person baptized is made a member of the true Mystical Body of Christ.
Can a non-Catholic be a Sponsor?
We have a further difficulty in regard to the faith of the community in that both sponsors in a new rite Vatican II baptism need not be Catholics. One can be a non-Catholic (of a different faith) who stands as a witness of their common faith. Obviously that is not the faith of the true Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.
B
Brendan
Guest
Huh?
Attempting 2 Baptisms is a violation of Church Law, Both the 1917 and the 1983.
And that article was complete BUNK.
Heck Constantine was Baptized on his deathbed by a heretic Arian who didn’t believe in a Divine Christ, but the Church has always recognized that Baptism as valid and Constantine is a Saint of the Church.
And now this guy comes along and says that the new Rite of Baptism has flaws of Intent??
He states that the Intent only cover Church membership, but conviently edits out that rest of the request
“Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church, which we have all professed with you?”
The Profession of Faith that is professed JUST PRIOR, includes “One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sin”
Ergo, full Intent is there.
(and no Non Catholic can be a sponsor. A non Catholic may act as a Witness. That means they might be called up to testify that a Baptism occured if there is ever doubt. The same function the Official Witnesses perform at a Wedding.)
Either Fr.Pulvermacher is grossly ignorant of what the Canonical role of a Witness is, or is bearing false witness and his soul is in danger.
P
pgoings
Guest
It should be remembered that Fr Pulvermacher’s current “job” is that of Anti-Pope, specifically Pope Pius XII of Springdale, Washington.
truecatholic.org/pope/
Re-baptism under any pretext is a gross sacrilege.
–Paul
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
BulldogCath said:
**You committed grave sacrilege against the Sacrament of Baptism, by doubting the effectiveness of the Sacrament itself! **
A person cannot be Baptized twice, and the Church takes great precautions to ensure that this does not happen. You purposely circumvented the safeguards established by the Church.
For your information it was the Rite of Baptism in which the wording was changed, NOT the Sacrament of Baptism, itself.
The current Rite also contains an exorcism with the anointing with the Oil of Catechumens before the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
Keep in mind it was to the Church that Christ entrusted the Sacraments, not to you or I!
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Sacrements are supposed to never change, not by anyone and I have deep confusion and doubt as to why the wording of a baptism, or worse yet the consecration would ever be changed. I would rather have the sacrilege hang over my head than not have my baby baptised in the correct traditional way, as well as the new way to be sure.
Please understand Brother, this is the entire problem with Vatican II-it has confused the honest and well meaning laity-even to the point that they have deep doubt of the sacrements. How can words be changed -when a sacrement is an outward sign instituted by Christ himself???
Refering to my Baltimore Catechism, I will go through what I was taught as a youngster:
Sacrement-A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by CHRIST (not some theologian in the 1960’s) to give grace.
Whence have the sacrements the power of giving grace?
The sacraments have the power of giving grace from the merits of JESUS CHRIST
Which are the sacraments that give Sanctifying Grace?
Baptism and Penance -and they are called Sacraments of the Dead
Why are Baptism and Penance called Sacrements of the dead?
Because they take away sin, which is the death of the soul, and give grace, which is life.
And yes-I understand that Baptism-as I know my catechism-is not allowed to be received more than once as they imprint a character on the soul. But they way I look at it, the church does not recognize the Traditionalists anyway, and teach they are schismatics and not “real priests”, so then in the eyes of the church she was not baptised twice. But if you think I am going to take a chance and not give my daughter the sanctifying grace she will need to fight off the evil one-all because someone decided to change the meaning and words to be more “Modern”, that is not a chance I can take with her soul.
God bless
Please understand Brother, this is the entire problem with Vatican II-it has confused the honest and well meaning laity-even to the point that they have deep doubt of the sacrements. How can words be changed -when a sacrement is an outward sign instituted by Christ himself???
Refering to my Baltimore Catechism, I will go through what I was taught as a youngster:
Sacrement-A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by CHRIST (not some theologian in the 1960’s) to give grace.
Whence have the sacrements the power of giving grace?
The sacraments have the power of giving grace from the merits of JESUS CHRIST
Which are the sacraments that give Sanctifying Grace?
Baptism and Penance -and they are called Sacraments of the Dead
Why are Baptism and Penance called Sacrements of the dead?
Because they take away sin, which is the death of the soul, and give grace, which is life.
And yes-I understand that Baptism-as I know my catechism-is not allowed to be received more than once as they imprint a character on the soul. But they way I look at it, the church does not recognize the Traditionalists anyway, and teach they are schismatics and not “real priests”, so then in the eyes of the church she was not baptised twice. But if you think I am going to take a chance and not give my daughter the sanctifying grace she will need to fight off the evil one-all because someone decided to change the meaning and words to be more “Modern”, that is not a chance I can take with her soul.
God bless
Br. Rich SFO said:
O
otm
Guest
You not onloy committed sacrilege, but are dancing awfully close to treating the Sacraments as magic, and that couples with false gods.
Where ever you learned your religion classes, I hope you will go back and get a refund; you were sold a false bill of goods.
You might also want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Some of your reading material is beyond questionable.
Laity who have “deep doubt about the Sacraments” are generally ill-educated, and found hanging out mighty close to the sede-vacantists. Their motto seems to be “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Hmmm my education came right from the nuns and the Baltimore Catechism-not some made up version-and who do you have teaching cathechism now to our children-divorcees and liberal woman bent on female ordination. In my diocese, the entire program from the deacons on down is under investigation, which I am sure nothing will come of it as nothing ever does, for teaching heresy.
Sacrements are instituted by Christ and never never to change. No man or even a council is above changing a sacrement-please show me where it is permitted for a sacrement and the wording is permitted to be changed to be “Modern”.
Please back up your statement-Vatican II reinvented the entire Catholic religion-from the way we treat other faiths, to the mass, the sacrements, sainthood, even a new translation of the Bible to make it politically correct.
That sounds like an entirely new faith to me-not the one I grew up with and that sustained the faithful for centuries
otm:
Sacrements are instituted by Christ and never never to change. No man or even a council is above changing a sacrement-please show me where it is permitted for a sacrement and the wording is permitted to be changed to be “Modern”.
Please back up your statement-Vatican II reinvented the entire Catholic religion-from the way we treat other faiths, to the mass, the sacrements, sainthood, even a new translation of the Bible to make it politically correct.
That sounds like an entirely new faith to me-not the one I grew up with and that sustained the faithful for centuries
B
BulldogCath
Guest
**PROPER FORM AND MATTER: **It is well known that the manner of administering the **Sacraments **was confided by Christ to His Church. We know that Christ specified certain sacraments in a precise manner - *in specie *to use the theological term. Such is the case with both Baptism and the Eucharist. With regard to the other sacraments, it is generally held that He only specified their matter and form *in genere - *in a general way, leaving to the Apostles the care and power of determining them more precisely.
‘Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely *(in specie) *the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way *(in genere) *that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g.-, to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders.’(19)
Now the Church has been around for a long time, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments - almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of tradition and cannot be changed at will - not by any individual, not by a council, and not even by a pope. This principle was made clear by Leo XIII in his Bull *Apostolicae curae: *‘The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or ‘ceremonial’ parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited…’
‘It is well know that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments.’ (Plus X, Ex quo nono).
It [the Council of Trent] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, *without violating their substance, *she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them…’ (Session, XXI, Chapter 2, Council of Trent). The crux of the debate about ‘substance’ revolves around the issue of ‘meaning.’ Thus, as we shall see, in some of the Sacraments, the form used varied over the centuries, and in the different (traditionally recognized) Churches. But providing the ‘meaning’ of the form was not changed, the words used substantially carried the same import that Christ intended. This is clearly the teaching of St. Thomas: ‘It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament is invalid’ *(Summa *III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
‘Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely *(in specie) *the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way *(in genere) *that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g.-, to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders.’(19)
Now the Church has been around for a long time, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments - almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of tradition and cannot be changed at will - not by any individual, not by a council, and not even by a pope. This principle was made clear by Leo XIII in his Bull *Apostolicae curae: *‘The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or ‘ceremonial’ parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited…’
‘It is well know that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments.’ (Plus X, Ex quo nono).
It [the Council of Trent] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, *without violating their substance, *she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them…’ (Session, XXI, Chapter 2, Council of Trent). The crux of the debate about ‘substance’ revolves around the issue of ‘meaning.’ Thus, as we shall see, in some of the Sacraments, the form used varied over the centuries, and in the different (traditionally recognized) Churches. But providing the ‘meaning’ of the form was not changed, the words used substantially carried the same import that Christ intended. This is clearly the teaching of St. Thomas: ‘It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament is invalid’ *(Summa *III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
In the Sacrament of Baptism the Matter (water), Intent (washing away both Original and actual sins, making one a member of Christ’s Church), and Form (“I Baptize you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of The Holy Spirit [or Ghost]”) is the same today as it has always been.
The Sacrament of Baptism has NOT been changed in ANY way! The Rite of Baptism has, yes, the “extra” actions and words which are not part of the actual Sacrament have changed several times over the last 2000 years.
The Sacrament of Baptism has NOT been changed in ANY way! The Rite of Baptism has, yes, the “extra” actions and words which are not part of the actual Sacrament have changed several times over the last 2000 years.
O
otm
Guest
I don’t know what diocese you are in so I have no idea whether things are good, bad, or indifferent. I can quote the Baltimore Catechism too; that is what I was taught. However, the Baltimore Catechism was diercted the children; faith is a little more extensive than that. If your learning stopped there, then you need to get busy.
The Sacraments were isntituted by Christ, but even a modicum of study of the history of the Sacraments will show you that while the Sacrament may not change, the externals certainly can and do. You might, for example, make a review of the history of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation; or if that word makes your socks run up and down, Confession, or Penance, or whatever name you fell is most worthy.
At one point,early on, the church held that one could only go to the Sacrament once in a lifetime. That obviously changed. Nothing in the Baltimore Catechism said that we received the Sacraments word for word in their format from Christ. Go read the Gospels; they aren’t there. As to Baptism, the only words necessary are "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit; the names are interchangeable in English). As the rest of it is not necessary or required, and your insistence that the Sacrament has changed belies about an eighth grade level understanding of your faith. If that is where you are in your understanding of the faith, you need to educate yourself further.
I am baffeled as to what to say to someone who is, or is heading towards, the hyper-Traditional end of the spectrum. The biggest problem I find is that they have been listening to people who are not even on the fringe of the Church is terms of the Magisterial teachings. I find further that they are generally somewhere between frightened and scared out of their minds by change. They also see the Church as monolithic and static, and have no knowledge of the vast history of changes the Church has gone through over the centuries. They also show no ability to distinguish between form and substance, and between incidentals and essentials. Sacraments take on an almost magic-like quality and life in the Church becomes mechanistic.
I also find that the people they listen to and read seem to be among those who see a conspiracy at every turn, are isolated from the mainstream, and are borderline Gnostic. Sadly, they are often some poor, misguided, half-baked priest (some of whom have had their faculties revoked or have been outright excommunicated), all of which adds fuel to the conspiracy theory.
Vatican 2 didn’t reinvent anything. The Bible was not translated to be “politically correct”; the translations have attempted to be true to the meaning of the original texts. Anyone listening to what the Church actually says about other faiths would know that the Church has not and does not deny that the Protestant churches are in doctrinal error. Again, you might want to get a copy of the Catechism, as it is written by the magisterial authority of the Church. And you might seriouls want to consider that sacrilege is a poor way to start teaching your child about the faith.
B
Brendan
Guest
Bulldog,
The Church recognizes, and has always recognized the Baptism of others as being a Valid Sacrament. The Church recognizes the Baptism of all the major protestant denominations. And it would recognize any Baptisms done by Fr. Pulvermacher.
Check on the Baptism of St. Constantine. He was baptized by an Arian heretic, a person who didn’t believe that Christ was God.
And the Church has recognized Constantines Baptism as valid (or else he wouldn’t be a Saint, now would he?)
Why would this be. Because the Church is bound to accept Truth, the Truth stated in the Council of Trent.
Also, look at the Council of Trent - S. VII Canon 4 on baptism
So if a ‘Traditionalist’ denies the validity of a Vatican II Baptism, they are denying Trent, and are anathema.
If the Baptism is done with water, by the Triune formula and with the intent of Regeneration, the Church and all faithful Catholics must accept it, or risk anathema. The Validity of the Sacrament does not depend on the Canonical status of the minister.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
No I do not deny the post V2 church at all- I was concerned after my Uncle and Aunt-who only attend SSPV and SSPX-that my NO baptism might not be valid. I was not sure and still have concerns over the changing of the sacraments and the wording as they are from Christ-so I just wanted to have both ends covered, and I must say the traditional baptism was beautiful, it was amazing.
Brendan:
K
katolik
Guest
The SSPX has never questioned baptisms unless the priest who did it was one of those “I baptize you in the Name of the Creator” people. Brendan, there are some sedevacantists who pose as “Traditionalists”. They question everything NO. These people eventually go insane and become “home aloners” That is they believe there are no valid priests in the world and they stay home from Mass. Sad things they are but they do alot of damage. Also about “Father” traditio.
Bulldog:
Don’t you aunts and uncles know that the SSPX in no way supports the SSPV. The SSPV cut off from the SSPX in 1983 and it stole three of the SSPX’S properties. That’s on top of the SSPV’s sedevacantist theories, which puts them extra Ecclesiam. And don’t you remember EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? They need our prayers
Brendan:
Bulldog:
Don’t you aunts and uncles know that the SSPX in no way supports the SSPV. The SSPV cut off from the SSPX in 1983 and it stole three of the SSPX’S properties. That’s on top of the SSPV’s sedevacantist theories, which puts them extra Ecclesiam. And don’t you remember EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? They need our prayers
- Status