Has the Church convalidated the baptiin some cases?smal formula "In the Name o Jesus"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPG

Guest
Hello everyone,

I was told that the Church recently decided to regard baptisms made in th name of Jesus as valid for some of the Eastern Churches - i don’t know if Catholic or Orthodox. That person said he was given some texts about it about 10 years ago (and seems to be looking for them :o)

I have read that some of the Fathers and other theologians argued for its validity (S. Augustine) or made declarations (pope Stephen), as it doesn’t necessarily deny the Trinity, but I still can’t find any example of such a practice, and I didn’t find anything official stating it can be done. As a sacristan, I certainly don’t see any option to use another formula in the rubrics.

Does anyone have more information about this - theoretical for now - recent convalidation?

Thank you
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello everyone,

I was told that the Church recently decided to regard baptisms made in th name of Jesus as valid for some of the Eastern Churches - i don’t know if Catholic or Orthodox. That person said he was given some texts about it about 10 years ago (and seems to be looking for them :o)

I have read that some of the Fathers and other theologians argued for its validity (S. Augustine) or made declarations (pope Stephen), as it doesn’t necessarily deny the Trinity, but I still can’t find any example of such a practice, and I didn’t find anything official stating it can be done. As a sacristan, I certainly don’t see any option to use another formula in the rubrics.

Does anyone have more information about this - theoretical for now - recent convalidation?

Thank you
Click to expand...
Who told you that the Church recently decided this and where is the Church document that spells it out? I would start by verifying that the story is even true.
 
Sorry for the many mistakes in the title, which is Re: Has the Church convalidated the baptismal formula “In the Name o Jesus”.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Who told you that the Church recently decided this and where is the Church document that spells it out? I would start by verifying that the story is even true.
Click to expand...
A theologian (hence not a canonist…) For the rest, it is what I am lookin for: a document, examples in history. We are looking or the same things, that i why I asked whether anyone knows anything more about this.
 
MarcoPG said:
A theologian (hence not a canonist…) For the rest, it is what I am lookin for: a document, examples in history. We are looking or the same things, that i why I asked whether anyone knows anything more about this.
Click to expand...
Ah. I have not heard of this, so I cannot help. :o If this were true, I would definitely want to know, too, as it strikes me as having huge implications—especially for RCIA and those coming into the Church.
 
I’ll bet the house.
It’s not true. That would have been major news.
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello everyone,

I was told that the Church recently decided to regard baptisms made in th name of Jesus as valid for some of the Eastern Churches - i don’t know if Catholic or Orthodox. That person said he was given some texts about it about 10 years ago (and seems to be looking for them :o)

I have read that some of the Fathers and other theologians argued for its validity (S. Augustine) or made declarations (pope Stephen), as it doesn’t necessarily deny the Trinity, but I still can’t find any example of such a practice, and I didn’t find anything official stating it can be done. As a sacristan, I certainly don’t see any option to use another formula in the rubrics.

Does anyone have more information about this - theoretical for now - recent convalidation?

Thank you
Click to expand...
Since you heard it from a theologian, the most logical procedure would be to ask the theologian for the documentation.

Just as a curiosity - where did they get their degree, and what degree did they get?

And I have never heard the word “convalidation” used in Baptism discussions. AFAIK, the Church will baptize someone if they were “baptized” in one of the few ecclesial communities (such as Jehovah"s Witnesses) which the Church does not recognize as a valid baptism. But that is not a convalidation; it is a baptism, the same as if a person was never baptized.

Where, for example, a candidate for entry to the Church believes they were baptized (for example, in some ecclesial community which does not keep records) and has no one who can say "Yes, this individual was baptized by “______” (church), or was allegedly baptized by Great Aunt Tilly who is now dead, and no one can attest to the baptism, they may be conditionally baptized; but that is not, AFAIK, called a convalidation. It is called a conditional baptism.

I have never heard of any such baptismal formula being accepted by the Church, but then, again, I am not a Church historian.
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello everyone,

I was told that the Church recently decided to regard baptisms made in th name of Jesus as valid for some of the Eastern Churches - i don’t know if Catholic or Orthodox. That person said he was given some texts about it about 10 years ago (and seems to be looking for them :o)

I have read that some of the Fathers and other theologians argued for its validity (S. Augustine) or made declarations (pope Stephen), as it doesn’t necessarily deny the Trinity, but I still can’t find any example of such a practice, and I didn’t find anything official stating it can be done. As a sacristan, I certainly don’t see any option to use another formula in the rubrics.

Does anyone have more information about this - theoretical for now - recent convalidation?

Thank you
Click to expand...
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism, 2008

“…any Baptism is invalid when it does not contain the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, with the distinct expression of the three Persons with their respective names.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html
 
Vico said:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism, 2008

“…any Baptism is invalid when it does not contain the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, with the distinct expression of the three Persons with their respective names.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html
Click to expand...
Thank you for this document. Unfortunately I can’t choose the language, as it is only for English speakers.
I will have to translate it for him.
 
MarcoPG said:
Yes, that is what I have found, but it is incomplete compared to the English version.

No Google Translate or me 🙂 I will do it myself.
Click to expand...
Probably this part (extracted from the document) is all you need to translate:

“Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit conforms to the command of the Lord found at the end of Matthew’s Gospel: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The Church has no right to change what Christ himself has instituted. Therefore, any Baptism is invalid when it does not contain the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, with the distinct expression of the three Persons with their respective names. Throughout the ages, the Magisterium of the Church has repeatedly taught that Christian Baptism is administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
 
Unfortunately, posters here seem to be confusing several different issues.
  1. The recent documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are not dealing with the baptismal formula “in the name of Jesus.” Instead, they are dealing with recent attempts to be politically correct by replacing the names of the Blessed Trinity with P.C. names such as “Creator, Redeemer…”
While those 2 issues are somewhat related, they are entirely different questions.

CDF responses about the modern-day problem of changing the names of the 3 Divine Persons of the Trinity are not (repeat not) dealing with the ancient question of baptism “in the name of Jesus.”
  1. The article by Msgr Miralles is an article about the interventions by the CDF. It is not the interventions or dubia themselves. Msgr Miralles is citing three examples in his article.
Those 3 examples are:
Responsum ad propositum dubium de validitate baptismatis apud communitatem «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», 5 June 2001: AAS 93 (2001) 476;

Notificatio de validitate baptismatis apud «The New Church» confessionem collati, 20 November 1992: AAS 85 (1993) 179;

Notificatio de validitate baptismatis apud «Christian Community» Rudolfi Steiner confessionem, 9 March 1991: AAS 83 (1991) 422.

Posters here are confusing the 3 examples with the article.

The article by Msgr Miralles is not the response from the CDF. It is an article *about *the responses by the CDF. Please understand the difference.
  1. Not everything that appears on www.vatican.va is an official communication of the Church. One must (repeat must) look at the document itself and discern the authority of the document.
  2. The letters A.A.S. are an abbreviation for “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” or “Acts of the Apostolic See.” Previously (prior to 1909), it was known as “Acta Sanctae Sedis” (or A.S.S.) This is the official communication from the Holy See about juridic matters–indeed, it carries the force-of-law (see canon 8). It can, and often does, contain all sorts of official communication from the Holy See. It corresponds roughly to what we have in the U.S. called the “Federal Register.” It is the official means of communicating new laws and binding interpretations of existing laws. It’s not always laws either; it can be any subject matter that the Vatican sees fit to officially publish.
AAS is not “Latin with Italian supplement” (as one poster, who obviously has no idea about the subject, posted). It is mostly in Latin but often contains small or even large sections in any number of vernacular languages, depending on the specific subject matter. This is yet another example of why people should not post comments about things that they do not understand.

Acta Apostolicae Sedis from 1909 to 2015 can be accessed here: vatican.va/archive/aas/index_en.htm

Presumably, the 2016 and 2017 editions have not yet been scanned into PDF documents.
 
FrDavid96 said:
…
  1. The letters A.A.S. are an abbreviation for “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” or “Acts of the Apostolic See.” Previously (prior to 1909), it was known as “Acta Sanctae Sedis” (or A.S.S.) This is the official communication from the Holy See about juridic matters–indeed, it carries the force-of-law (see canon 8). It can, and often does, contain all sorts of official communication from the Holy See. It corresponds roughly to what we have in the U.S. called the “Federal Register.” It is the official means of communicating new laws and binding interpretations of existing laws. It’s not always laws either; it can be any subject matter that the Vatican sees fit to officially publish.
AAS is not “Latin with Italian supplement” (as one poster, who obviously has no idea about the subject, posted). It is mostly in Latin but often contains small or even large sections in any number of vernacular languages, depending on the specific subject matter. This is yet another example of why people should not post comments about things that they do not understand.

…
Click to expand...
In this case my source that there is a supplement is vatican.va/roman_curia/labour_office/docs/documents/ulsa_b16_1_it.html:

Article 2:
… 3. The laws referred to in art. 1 n. 2 are filed in the relevant Governor’s Archive and published in the special supplement of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis , except in special cases that a different form of publication is prescribed in the law. …

That the supplement is in Italian was from Wikipedia, so it may well be that many languages are used for those laws.
 
FrDavid96 said:
So, what are you looking for? and what language do you prefer?
Click to expand...
The document about the formulas in English (“Creator” etc.) would be fine, as it also states that any baptism isn’t valid if the Three Persons aren’t invoked.

French would be ideal, as he is French. He may know some English though.

I translated some passages for him, and he is of my opinion (that is would be invalid if not in the Trinitarian formula); still looks for the documents he reads some time ago. I am curious. But it has been a week or so, now…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top