Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane admits baptism blunder

  • Thread starter Thread starter eelpis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope - problem existed, problem was rectified (in as far as it could be, at any rate) back in 2004. 🤷
 
LilyM said:
Nope - problem existed, problem was rectified (in as far as it could be, at any rate) back in 2004. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well I for one cannot see how any Catholic priest could have the audacity to use invalid forms of baptism in the first place.

For me this is scandalous.
 
eelpis said:
Well I for one cannot see how any Catholic priest could have the audacity to use invalid forms of baptism in the first place.

For me this is scandalous.
Click to expand...
Audacity? It could be something as simple as a matter of poor formation and teaching leading these priests to think their formulas could validly be used.

And the fact is priests are human and errors in judgement and practice is unavoidable - even St Peter made mistakes (for example in refusing to eat with Gentiles, for which he was rightly criticised by St Paul).

Such misdeeds will happen sometimes in even the most ideal of circumstances. Save your scandal instead for situations where the errors aren’t quickly corrected. This would not seem to be one of those situations.
 
This Priest still needs catechism lessons. He says in the article:

"It doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means it’s illicit, he said.

It is invalid as there is another thread on this issue and the Vatican said this:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism “in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,” is not a valid Christian sacrament.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56943
 
"This is basic information for anyone, certainly a priest, with even a rudimentary grasp of sacramental validity. The fact that it is being promulgated from Rome is a disturbing sign of how bad things have become.

It’s like an airline putting out a memo to its pilots: “You must engage the throttle to cause the airplane to move down the runway and lift off into the air. Failure to do this will result in flight delays.” "

This captures my thoughts about the whole matter.
 
childofmary1143 said:
This Priest still needs catechism lessons. He says in the article:

"It doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means it’s illicit, he said.

It is invalid as there is another thread on this issue and the Vatican said this:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism “in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,” is not a valid Christian sacrament.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56943
Click to expand...
He also said “Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage”

Which is also wrong. You can’t recieve the other sacraments if you’re not a baptized catholic. I can’t decide if he’s just covering his butt or really doesn’t know.
 
LilyM said:
Audacity? It could be something as simple as a matter of poor formation and teaching leading these priests to think their formulas could validly be used.

And the fact is priests are human and errors in judgement and practice is unavoidable - even St Peter made mistakes (for example in refusing to eat with Gentiles, for which he was rightly criticised by St Paul).

Such misdeeds will happen sometimes in even the most ideal of circumstances. Save your scandal instead for situations where the errors aren’t quickly corrected. This would not seem to be one of those situations.
Click to expand...
Yes - “audacity” is exactly the right term. Those formulae are used knowingly by those supporting the feminist agenda. There is no doubt of that. Certainly they knew it was illicit - at best they didn’t think it invalid. I submit no priest was unaware of the problem with the feminist formula. To continue to whitewash this by excusing those rogue priests is unconscionable. The formula for Baptism is not some bit of new praxis such as Peter eating with gentiles. I also submit Peter failed due to a weakness whereas these priests failed in an unauthorized and scandalous exercise of authority not given to them.

BTW we don’t know how quickly the matter was fixed - it was only disclosed quickly since the Vatican said the Baptisms were “invalid.” The practice was stopped in 2004 - but apparently thought only “illicit” since seemingly nothing was announced then. Now, despite the spokesman’s continued use of “illicit,” it’s clear the “baptisms” were invalid.

A veritable mess due to the hubris and arrogance of feminist priests - and yes, that’s scandalous.
 
LilyM said:
Nope - problem existed, problem was rectified (in as far as it could be, at any rate) back in 2004. 🤷
Click to expand...
Actually the problem has not been rectified - the Vatican says the “baptisms” were “INVALID” That means those people have not been baptized. The problem has been identified in part - but I doubt that real Baptisms have been performed to “rectify” the matter.

It’s a major mess, IMHO.
 
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formulas
«I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier»
and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer»

QUESTIONS

First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?

Second question: Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?

RESPONSES

To the first question: Negative.

To the second question: Affirmative.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 1, 2008.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
  • Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
    Titular Archbishop of Sila
    Secretary
[00327-02.01] [Original text: Latin]

That pretty clearly says it’s “INVALID”
 
LilyM said:
Audacity? It could be something as simple as a matter of poor formation and teaching leading these priests to think their formulas could validly be used.

And the fact is priests are human and errors in judgement and practice is unavoidable - even St Peter made mistakes (for example in refusing to eat with Gentiles, for which he was rightly criticised by St Paul).

Such misdeeds will happen sometimes in even the most ideal of circumstances. Save your scandal instead for situations where the errors aren’t quickly corrected. This would not seem to be one of those situations.
Click to expand...
This is quite more than errors in judgement. This touches on the sacraments. This particular parish is so feminist that it has had to be admonished by the bishop in the past for altering the lectionary readings to remove all masculine references to God. And as previously stated already, this priest should have known better and needs to brush up on Theology 101.
 
eelpis said:
Well I for one cannot see how any Catholic priest could have the audacity to use invalid forms of baptism in the first place.

For me this is scandalous.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I also consider it to be scandalous. I can’t believe this was done. :mad: Thanks be to God that it was corrected!
 
I’m a protestant, but even I feel scandalized by this! I can hardly imagine how much horror catholics must be experiencing over this. How do these people get into your church? They obviously don’t have any love or respect for the church, in my opinion. The sacrament of baptism is no place for political pronouncements. Roanoker
 
roanoker said:
I’m a protestant, but even I feel scandalized by this! I can hardly imagine how much horror catholics must be experiencing over this. How do these people get into your church? They obviously don’t have any love or respect for the church, in my opinion. The sacrament of baptism is no place for political pronouncements. Roanoker
Click to expand...
‘How do they get into the Church’? Same way every Catholic does and most Christians do - they are baptised, usually as infants. Once that happens they are part of the church like it or not, until such time as they separate from it by schism or heresy.

What you mean is how they become priests. The same way as the leaders do of the myriad of Protestant denominations who will either never hold Communion services or will demean the dignity due to Communion by using Wonder Bread and grape juice and doing everything possible to emphasise its purely symbolic nature. They certainly show no love for the sacrament.
 
The Baptisms were not valid…however, by submitting to the ritual they thought was legitimate they have displayed a desire…baptism of desire. However, those who know they were incorrectly batized should recieve a conditional baptism immediately.
 
Yerusalyim: They should not receive a conditional baptism, but baptism period! Their original baptisms were invalid. Conditional baptisms are administered in those cases where there is doubt regarding the validity of the original baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top