Feminist formula makes Baptism invalid, Vatican rules

[rpp]

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?**

BINGO! While I, of course, have no Church authority; that is I am no priest, theologian, canon lawyer, etc., I think this is exactly what would apply.

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.

Again I think you have made a very cogent observation. Catholics have not been the only ones in recent years to use this formula.

If a convert is at all uncertain of the formula used, requesting a conditional re-baptism in these circumstances would seem reasonable to me. Even if it turns out someone has already been validly baptized (but the person has reasonable doubts) this would do no harm, I do not think.

 

[rpp]

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.

Perhaps you can discuss your concerns with your current parish priest. I do not think that a conditional re-baptism would do any harm.

 

[Refugium]

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.

“Silliness” is certainly one way of describing a grave sacrilege.

 

[Refugium]

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)?

Naaah. The crisis in the Church is EVERYWHERE.

 

[rpp]

“Silliness” is certainly one way of describing a grave sacrilege.

Sometimes understatement is appropriate.

Personally, I think a more accurate phrase would be “arrogant sacrilegious atrocity”. But I did not want to sound mean-spirited to thin-skinned feminists. (Yes I know “thin-skinned feminist” is a redundant phrase.)

 

[peregrinus_sg]

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 think this substitution of formula affected some parts of the Church more than others, and ultimately remains limited to specific parishes. There is no need for hysteria in this matter. Catholics who may have remembered hearing this formula should report to their Bishop so that an investigation can be made and the people affected traced.

On the other hand, I have faith that God will protect the Church from ordaining invalidly baptized men. Utimately, the Church is God’s work, not ours, and he will not allow human mistakes and limitations to weaken the Church’s sacramental Orders.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I think this incident could have been prevented if
(1) the laity were better catechized as to the required matter and form of the Sacraments, and
(2) the laity were more willing to challenge their priests for liturgical abuses.

We need to empower the laity, just not in the way some folks would like to think of it!

 

[Tietjen]

I think this incident could have been prevented if
(1) the laity were better catechized as to the required matter and form of the Sacraments, and
(2) the laity were more willing to challenge their priests for liturgical abuses.

We need to empower the laity, just not in the way some folks would like to think of it!

While I am certainly in favor of a better catechized laity, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Priests who knew better but decided that they wanted to do something different.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

While I am certainly in favor of a better catechized laity, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Priests who knew better but decided that they wanted to do something different.

Definately, and God will call them to judgement for sure. But I was thinking that if the laity were ready to take a wayward priest to task, such fraternal correction could help prevent the spread of such abuses. Of course, prayer is also important in any fraternal correction.

 

[Jenny_Z]

I’m sad that this actually needed clarification

 

[rebusrms]

I can’t believe what I’m reading. This is craziness to change the wording of a baptism. Makes me think of a quote from a little band from Athens Georgia, “Its the end of the world as we know it…” Not trying to be a doomsday prophet but the more I learn, the more I see, I can’t help but think we are moving closer to the end.

 

[rush176]

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.

I would think this is the same as anything that invalidates a sacrament. If a couple gets married in the Church and then later it is annulled it is determined that there never was a valid marriage. Just the same as if there is the sacrament of the Eucharist without a validly ordained priest. It is invalid.

The child must be rebaptized using the correct form.

 

[idrum677]

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)?

Don’t worry, you see some of that same foolishness in the east as well.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hasn’t Cardinal Levada been criticized for allowing inclusive language before?

 

[po18guy]

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. [Edited by Moderator]

Your link is to a mysterious, anonymous blog that I trust not at all. I was baptized in the Seattle Diocese by immersion, performed by the priest himself. This was in the 1980s. Better check your allegation through snopes.com! It sounds Catholic urban legend-ish. Even if true, this is only anecdotal evidence of one particular priest apparently shirking his duties.

Even a layman may validly baptize. Crazy as it sounds, he/she need not even be Christian, as long as their intent and the matter and form of the baptism are correct. An example of this would be a dying victim of a traffic accident asking a bystander for baptism. Such is God’s grace.

Christ’s peace.

 

[rpp]

I think this incident could have been prevented if
(1) the laity were better catechized as to the required matter and form of the Sacraments, and
(2) the laity were more willing to challenge their priests for liturgical abuses.

We need to empower the laity, just not in the way some folks would like to think of it!

I think this problem came into being because of an “empowered” laity. But in this case, the laity was comprised of apostates and heretics.

An “empowered” laity is the last thing that is needed. Better instruction in the faith, however, is always a good thing. But what people learn is only as good as their teacher.

 

[Brendan]

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)?

There is a difference. I’ve been out to Seattle at a conference, and attended Ash Wed Mass in the Cathedral.

Not only were they pouring the Blessed Sacrament into chalices AFTER the consecration (in violation of Redeptionis Sacramentum), there was a EMHC who was walking around with a pitcher full of Jesus, topping off the chalices of the other EMHC’s

Cardinal Madia here in Detroit would have fired the person who came up with that in a heart beat.

With certain exceptions, such a +Vigernon of Oakland CA, there seems to be a lot more general ignoring of Vatican documents on the liturgy that one finds in “Fly over” land.

 

[Brendan]

Even a layman may validly baptize. Crazy as it sounds, he/she need not even be Christian, as long as their intent and the matter and form of the baptism are correct. An example of this would be a dying victim of a traffic accident asking a bystander for baptism. Such is God’s grace.

Christ’s peace.

Liturgical Law requires that the same person who recites the Trinitarian forumual is the one who pours or immerses.

If the priest said the formula, while the parents immersed, the Baptism is most likely invalid.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

There is no need for hysteria in this matter … I have faith that God will protect the Church from ordaining invalidly baptized men. Utimately, the Church is God’s work, not ours, and he will not allow human mistakes and limitations to weaken the Church’s sacramental Orders.

Thanks for this perspective. We do have to trust that God knows what He’s doing — thus my comment that “I hope that God in His mercy will make up for whatever was lacking sacramentally for so many people.”

 

[scott1228]

National Catholic Reporter actually wrote that he opposed it in the liturgy:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word051305.htm

I know that when I lived in California, inclusive language was used in the Credo and Gospels, but the changing of the wording of the Baptismal Formula is very wrong.

I am not a fan of inclusive language in general, and have no problem saying, “for us men and for our salvation.”

If we can’t figure it out, let’s just go back to Latin!!