Feminist formula makes Baptism invalid, Vatican rules

[Eric_Olsen]

IMHO - I think those people need to be rebaptized and the priests who invalidly baptized those should be defrocked!

home.ix.netcom.com/~pugilist/index.htm

07:31 PM 2/29/2008 - Most Eastern Catholics would not be aware of this – likewise many Roman Catholics in this area who have not traveled extensively – but the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is actually two Churches: one East of the Rockies and one West. With a few notable exceptions, a Mass attended in, say, Seatle would be unrecognizable if one’s only experience of the Mass of the Roman Rite was in one’s home parish in Backwater Creek, Pennsylvania. Ditto for the celebration of other sacraments. I am reminded of a YouTube video of some months ago showing a baptism being performed in the Cathedral of a west-coast diocese: the priest – in this case, the rector of the cathedral – stood in a pool, waste deep, along with the baby’s parents and sponsors. It was they, not the priest, who submerged the child in the pool three times, while the priest recited the baptismal formula: “. . . I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,” carefully reformed to avoid any sexist overtones. I am told that this formula has been common for some time in the “West-of-the-Rockies Roman Catholic Church” (our Church, of course, baptizes by immersion as is our ancient custom, but we don’t invite the family to take a dip as well – and you can bet I’m not going for a swim either)…

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[rpp]

Here is the Catholic World News article on this.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56943

I think it is good that his silliness has been officially repudiated.

 

[benedictgal]

The article also appeared on Zenit.org, which, I think, is a better reporting agency on these things, and is quite trustworthy. At least they don’t try to put a spin on things.

Here is the actual declaration from Zenit:

On the Correct Formula for Baptism

Responses Released by Doctrinal Congregation

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here are the responses published today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the validity of baptism conferred with two specific formulas.

---

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

This is what the Zenit article says, in part:

[Edited by Moderator]

“Variations to the baptismal formula – using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons – as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology,” being an attempt “to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names,” the note clarified. “Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity.”

In a commentary on the responses, Cardinal Urbano Navarrete, former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, clarified: "The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptized, or who will in the future be baptized, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptized.

“Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of ‘non-baptized.’”

This implies that if they have received other sacraments, they are invalid as well and should be re-administered.

You may find the whole piece at:

zenit.org/article-21929?l=english

 

[scott1228]

Feminist formula makes Baptism invalid, Vatican rules

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56943

Good job, Cardinal Levada!!!

 

[rpp]

I am so relieved by this this. Perhaps soon we can get rid of that silly and misleading “inclusive” language that has hijacked the liturgical readings.

 

[brigid12]

If it is true that there is a different RCC out here vs. back east - I think I want to move (but what about my family)?

 

[NetNuncio]

I’m shocked that this needed clarification.

I suppose when it comes to something as important as baptism, even the most obvious matters need to be pointed out.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Think of the implications! How many Catholic “priests” are out there who were invalidly “baptized,” thus the sacrament of Holy Orders was invalid for them and they are not really priests? How many times did they give invalid “absolution” in the confessional because they are not validly ordained? How many people have been going to “Mass” for years celebrated by “priests” who are not even validly baptized, and received only bread and wine when they thought they were receiving the Body and Blood of Christ? (At least the baptisms these “priests” administered are valid, since technically anyone, even a non-Christian, can baptize in an emergency. I’m not sure about the validity of the marriages they witnessed, since I think that the couple actually confer the sacrament of matrimony on each other in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church and the priest or deacon is a witness.)

When I mentioned this directive to my husband (an agnostic), he said that they should automatically “re-baptize” all men who enter the seminary (I suppose “conditionally baptize” would be a better description, since we can only be baptized once). Does anyone know whether they actually do this for seminarians?

I hope that God in His mercy will make up for whatever was lacking sacramentally for so many people.

 

[Tietjen]

Feminist formula makes Baptism invalid, Vatican rules

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56943

Good job, Cardinal Levada!!!

For the clarification to come down indicates that there were actual violations! As another poster has stated, it’s astonishing that the Vatican would even have to rule on this situation. I cannot even begin to imagine a Priest so out of touch with the Church as to Baptize using this “feminist formula.”

 

[rpp]

For the clarification to come down indicates that there were actual violations! As another poster has stated, it’s astonishing that the Vatican would even have to rule on this situation. I cannot even begin to imagine a Priest so out of touch with the Church as to Baptize using this “feminist formula.”

Sadly, I can!

 

[BeeSweet]

So what happens if baby was Baptized with this formula, and the parents and witnesses just didn’t notice, or don’t remember what was said?? Do the church Baptismal records indicate the change that was made in the formula and used in a particular Baptism? If not, then what does that mean for other sacraments given based on the notion that baby was Baptized (and we have the pictures to prove it!).

I’m not personally concerned for my own son. My son was Baptized in the Trinitarian formula by a Spanish Dominican priest.

But I do wonder in the case of a child who is not aware with parents and godparents who are not aware.

 

[Tietjen]

So what happens if baby was Baptized with this formula, and the parents and witnesses just didn’t notice, or don’t remember what was said?? Do the church Baptismal records indicate the change that was made in the formula and used in a particular Baptism? If not, then what does that mean for other sacraments given based on the notion that baby was Baptized (and we have the pictures to prove it!).

No, the Baptismal records won’t state what formula was used since there is only one formula that the Church recognizes. I heard on EWTN radio someone addressing this issue and he stated that the other sacraments would NOT be in effect since there was no Baptism!!! I don’t remember which radio show it was but it was last week some time.

I don’t even like to imagine why a Priest would do this to a baby (or anyone for that matter).

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t even like to imagine why a Priest would do this to a baby (or anyone for that matter).

Because it is trendy and cool and everybody will like him…Ah, now, there, I owe you a new keyboard for that nasty upchuck on it!

 

[childofmary1143]

So what happens if baby was Baptized with this formula, and the parents and witnesses just didn’t notice, or don’t remember what was said?? Do the church Baptismal records indicate the change that was made in the formula and used in a particular Baptism? If not, then what does that mean for other sacraments given based on the notion that baby was Baptized (and we have the pictures to prove it!).

I’m not personally concerned for my own son. My son was Baptized in the Trinitarian formula by a Spanish Dominican priest.

But I do wonder in the case of a child who is not aware with parents and godparents who are not aware.

While Church attendance continues to decline, baptisms don’t. However this is a nightmare because how many people would actually remember what words would have been said. Also if the baptism is invalid then all the sacraments subsequently would be invalid too as baptism is necessary for the reception of the rest of them.

What happens to such souls if they die? Without baptism they can’t get to Heaven.

Would baptism of desire apply here?

 

[Just_wondering]

Hmm… maybe because I’m not Catholic yet, I have a different take on why the Vatican needed to point this out. I think it’s so that converts can figure out whether they need to be baptized in the Catholic church if they’ve been baptized before. The Church needs to examine the circumstances of their baptisms to determine whether the baptism was valid. The Church ruled that people that were baptized in churches that use a feminist formula haven’t truly been baptized and therefore need to do it again to convert to Catholicism.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

The episode reminds us that the liturgy of the Church belongs to the Church and no one may, on his or her own authority, change any portion of the liturgy, no matter how convinced one is about the justification of the change.

As for those unfortunate souls that were invalidly baptized, I’m sure God will judge according to their conscience should their status not be rectified through no fault of their own. The greater worry, I think, is when any male among them is subsequently ordained a priest or bishop, which would invalidate even more Sacraments, but I trust that God’s Holy Spirit will preserve the Church from this situation.

For those who made such unauthorized changes, they should tremble on their knees and beat their breasts and try with all their might to rectify the problem. Those who know of the situation should report to their Bishop so that he can act to rectify the situation. As for those who know but refuse to act: may God have mercy on their souls.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I wondered about that myself wether or not people baptised outside the Catholic church need to be rebaptized because of the feminist formula.

I imagine they too will have to be rebaptized. I also imagine allot of protestant mainline denominations are using that formula as well.

Hmm… maybe because I’m not Catholic yet, I have a different take on why the Vatican needed to point this out. I think it’s so that converts can figure out whether they need to be baptized in the Catholic church if they’ve been baptized before. The Church needs to examine the circumstances of their baptisms to determine whether the baptism was valid. The Church ruled that people that were baptized in churches that use a feminist formula haven’t truly been baptized and therefore need to do it again to convert to Catholicism.

 

[Brendan]

For the clarification to come down indicates that there were actual violations!

Yes there were. A few years ago, Cardinal Pell found out about a priest in his diocese that was baptizing using that wierd forumual. Cardinal Pell ordered that all the people that this priest had baptized to be conditionally re-baptized.

This clarification is important because it says not to even bother with a conditional rebaptism, but to simply Baptize them.

 

[stmaria]

The Church ruled that people that were baptized in churches that use a feminist formula haven’t truly been baptized and therefore need to do it again to convert to Catholicism.

A Mormon baptism is also invalid.

 

[krazykatlady]

While Church attendance continues to decline, baptisms don’t. However this is a nightmare because how many people would actually remember what words would have been said. Also if the baptism is invalid then all the sacraments subsequently would be invalid too as baptism is necessary for the reception of the rest of them.

What happens to such souls if they die? Without baptism they can’t get to Heaven.

Would baptism of desire apply here?

This has me really worried about my daughter’s baptism. I distinctly remember that we prayed in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier at our very “progressive” parish. I can’t remember for the life of me the words the priest used at the baptism. If he did use the illicit formula I wouldn’t have questioned it at the time.