M
MarcoPG
Guest
On this very subject, it is what I am looking for, and haven’t found yet.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Has the Church convalidated the baptiin some cases?smal formula "In the Name o Jesus"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vico
Guest
Catholic Encylopedia has:On this very subject, it is what I am looking for, and haven’t found yet.
Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: 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 Holy Orders.
Kennedy, D. (1912). Sacraments. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
M
MarcoPG
Guest
He did determine to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it is written in your quote: “for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form”. Even if we were to say He didn’t, the Church, which has the power of Christ, then did.Catholic Encylopedia has:
Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: 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 Holy Orders.
Kennedy, D. (1912). Sacraments. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
I therefore don’t see baptism being not determined in details. That is why I ask if the Church recognises baptism in the Name of Jesus, as long as the Trinity isn’t denied, when the Church teaches all the Persons must be expressed and that Jesus determined the form of this Sacrament.
The same Encyclopedia states under Baptism
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: “I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed.
…] In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity.
…]
The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, that is for the sacrament of baptism. Some receive baptism in a non sacramental form, such as baptism of desire or of blood.He did determine to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it is written in your quote: “for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form”. Even if we were to say He didn’t, the Church, which has the power of Christ, then did.
I therefore don’t see baptism being not determined in details. That is why I ask if the Church recognises baptism in the Name of Jesus, as long as the Trinity isn’t denied, when the Church teaches all the Persons must be expressed and that Jesus determined the form of this Sacrament.
The same Encyclopedia states under Baptism
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: “I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed.
…] In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity.
…]
The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
I am not talking about baptism of desire or of blood, since it doesn’t involve a formula.Yes, that is for the sacrament of baptism. Some receive baptism in a non sacramental form, such as baptism of desire or of blood.
I am interested in the formula for the sacramental baptism.
It is fine to say one shouldn’t look at Antiquity with our 21st-century mentality. But even so, I don’t see the Church teaching, in the first century or afterwards, that there are 2 formulas that can be accepted. So why would it be accepted now? The Didachè is a key document.
V
Vico
Guest
Regarding the formula, St. Thomas Aqulnas wrote one opinion:I am not talking about baptism of desire or of blood, since it doesn’t involve a formula.
I am interested in the formula for the sacramental baptism.
It is fine to say one shouldn’t look at Antiquity with our 21st-century mentality. But even so, I don’t see the Church teaching, in the first century or afterwards, that there are 2 formulas that can be accepted. So why would it be accepted now? The Didachè is a key document.
Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism > Article 6: Could one baptize with this form: “I baptize thee in the name of Christ?”
Objection 1. It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For just as there is “one Faith,” so is there “one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that “in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women.” Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1. It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
Yes, I have mentioned this in reply to a previous post. Before that, he says:Regarding the formula, St. Thomas Aqulnas wrote one opinion:
Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism > Article 6: Could one baptize with this form: “I baptize thee in the name of Christ?”
Objection 1. It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For just as there is “one Faith,” so is there “one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that “in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women.” Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1. It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
*I answer that, As stated above (III:64:3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words.*
V
Vico
Guest
Of course, yet it remains that he thought there was a special dispensation.Yes, I have mentioned this in reply to a previous post. Before that, he says:
*I answer that, As stated above (III:64:3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words.*
M
MarcoPG
Guest
Yes, as he says, an exception, if it wasn’t meant by that " by authority of the Christ."Of course, yet it remains that he thought there was a special dispensation.
Even with that, the Church always taught a unique formula. How could an old community use something else than the formula Christ commanded us to use, since it wasn’t for the Jews to revere His Name anymore, but for Christians?
I really cannot find this phantomatic christian community - if we except the possible exception made for the very first Christians baptized by the Apostles.
V
Vico
Guest
Dispensation is only made in matters that are not divine law. The Church received authority on matters of faith and morals.Yes, as he says, an exception, if it wasn’t meant by that " by authority of the Christ."
Even with that, the Church always taught a unique formula. How could an old community use something else than the formula Christ commanded us to use, since it wasn’t for the Jews to revere His Name anymore, but for Christians?
I really cannot find this phantomatic christian community - if we except the possible exception made for the very first Christians baptized by the Apostles.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
But it seems a dispensation was made for the first Christians to be baptized in another formula than the trinitarian one, in order for them to revere the Name of Jesus or Christ.Dispensation is only made in matters that are not divine law. The Church received authority on matters of faith and morals.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s exactly what I’ve been attempting to answer all along. It’s the same response that I gave in the very beginning.… That is why I ask if the Church recognises baptism in the Name of Jesus, as long as the Trinity isn’t denied, when the Church teaches all the Persons must be expressed and that Jesus determined the form of this Sacrament.
…
–Theologians are not unanimous in saying that baptism “In the name of Jesus” is either valid or invalid as an absolute statement. There is a lack of agreement or consensus on this point.
–The reason for the above statement is that we know that some early Christian baptisms were done using that (or similar) formula of “name of Jesus” or “name of Christ” or “name of Jesus Christ.” The theological principle here is that what was valid then can be valid now. Otherwise, we would be declaring an unknown number of early Christian baptisms as invalid; that kind of thinking is not sound theology.
–There is consensus among theologians that in the present day, an absence of mentioning the Trinity indicates an absence of belief, and therefore, such attempts are invalid. However, as stated above, there are still some who make a reasonable and sound argument that this is not an absolute that applies to every individual act.
You asked a question. That’s the answer. Apparently, you don’t like the answer. I can’t help that. All I can do is try to explain it.
I am getting the impression that you want the answer to be that it is (and always has been) absolutely invalid to baptize “in the name of Jesus.” That’s just not going to happen.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That kind of reasoning is no longer considered to be legitimate, although it was popular in the time of St Thomas. It is now seen as being little more than an easy way to dismiss difficult questions (in other words, a logical fallacy).But it seems a dispensation was made for the first Christians to be baptized in another formula than the trinitarian one, in order for them to revere the Name of Jesus or Christ.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
That is because I am not asking about what theologians think, but whether the Church ever regarded another formula as valid form, which could be the grounds to accept it now.That’s exactly what I’ve been attempting to answer all along. It’s the same response that I gave in the very beginning.
–Theologians are not unanimous in saying that baptism “In the name of Jesus” is either valid or invalid as an absolute statement. There is a lack of agreement or consensus on this point.
–The reason for the above statement is that we know that some early Christian baptisms were done using that (or similar) formula of “name of Jesus” or “name of Christ” or “name of Jesus Christ.” The theological principle here is that what was valid then can be valid now. Otherwise, we would be declaring an unknown number of early Christian baptisms as invalid; that kind of thinking is not sound theology.
–There is consensus among theologians that in the present day, an absence of mentioning the Trinity indicates an absence of belief, and therefore, such attempts are invalid. However, as stated above, there are still some who make a reasonable and sound argument that this is not an absolute that applies to every individual act.
You asked a question. That’s the answer. Apparently, you don’t like the answer. I can’t help that. All I can do is try to explain it.
I am getting the impression that you want the answer to be that it is (and always has been) absolutely invalid to baptize “in the name of Jesus.” That’s just not going to happen.
But since I don t find any document saying anything but there is only the trinitarian formula, even if aknowleding the controversy there was, I would have hoped to find evidence of this"early Christian community of the East" which did baptise “in the Name of Jesus”.
The theologian I have been talking about may have in mind the first Christians in the Acts for all I know.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
2 ways of saying the same thing.That is because I am not asking about what theologians think, but whether the Church ever regarded another formula as valid form, which could be the grounds to accept it now.
I am concerned that you think that there’s some single source of information that answers all questions. Not even the Catechism does that.
I keep saying repeating this: YES there were times and places where baptism “in the name of Jesus” was used as a valid form of baptism. How many times do I have to type out the same words? Really, how many times? I must have written it about 20 times now in this thread. I keep repeating the answer, but you you just keep repeating the question.
As I have said repeatedly, there are ample sources.But since I don t find any document saying anything but there is only the trinitarian formula, even if aknowleding the controversy there was, I would have hoped to find evidence of this"early Christian community of the East" which did baptise “in the Name of Jesus”.
The theologian I have been talking about may have in mind the first Christians in the Acts for all I know.
I’ve posted a link to the Summa where St Thomas himself acknowledges this fact. Others have posted links or quotes. If you aren’t going to read what they say, then there’s not much I can do.
All I can do is to ask you not to confuse the fact that you refuse to read something as meaning that it isn’t there.
Again, it seems to me that you came here posting a question but you won’t accept any answer other than the one you have pre-conceived. I’m sorry, but that just cannot happen.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.