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

[FrDavid96]

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.

This is subtle, but important. It might not be “if the 3 persons aren’t invoked” but instead “if other names are used for the 3 persons” More about that at the end.

Remember that the 3 documents referenced in this thread were specifically about re-naming the Trinity (at least 2, I’m not certain on the 3rd). Also, even though the Mormon formula uses the correct names, the actual persons referenced by those names are different from the One True God in Trinity. In other words, their concept of “God the Father” is not the same as the Christian one.

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…

This is important: what you’re writing here is not the same as the posted topic of the thread.

Remember that there are 2 very different (though related) questions.

1. Can we baptize “in the name of Jesus”?
2. Can we baptize “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier”?

Question 1 is an ancient question that has been discussed fairly often over the centuries. The early Fathers disagreed, and theologians continue to disagree. There has never been an absolute, final, definitive answer to that question. Today (and for most of the Christian era) we are required to use the Trinitarian formula, however, there is still some question as to whether or not a baptism performed “I baptize you in the Name of Jesus” is valid or invalid.

Part of what keeps it an open question is that we know some early Christians used that formula, and so declaring it invalid would be equivalent to declaring an unknown number of ancient baptisms likewise invalid.

Modern-day answers to the question do not quite settle the matter because even if we find documents declaring it to be an invalid formula, that is often because there is something else lacking in their baptism that also affects validity (such as a denial of the Trinity). As an example, Jehovas Witnesses use that form (although as a question, not a statement), but they also deny the Trinity, so the example (or precedent) only goes so far, and cannot be applied universally.

My morning break ends is a few minutes, so I have to leave. Later today, if no one has done so, I’ll try to find the 3 documents in French.

In the meantime, you can always look them up by following the link I provided earlier to AAS. Check the year of each one and read the corresponding PDF (they’re very large docs though, often running 400 pages or more). The number at the end of each citation is the page number in AAS, so they’re easy to find once you have the document on screen.
Sometimes the CDF makes translations available on their own section of vatican.va even if the translations weren’t printed in AAS.

 

[MarcoPG]

FrDavid96, you write:

*This is subtle, but important. It might not be “if the 3 persons aren’t invoked” but instead “if other names are used for the 3 persons” More about that at the end. *

The document states: “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.”

So it would seem, there must be the expression of the 3 Persons (Jesus only wouldn’t do it) with their respective names; so as you ssay, any other name wouldn’t be ok. But I am talking about the first remark I make. You need all three Persons in the formula.

You write:

Remember that the 3 documents referenced in this thread were specifically about re-naming the Trinity (at least 2, I’m not certain on the 3rd). Also, even though the Mormon formula uses the correct names, the actual persons referenced by those names are different from the One True God in Trinity. In other words, their concept of “God the Father” is not the same as the Christian one.

Yes, but the statement I quote goes beyond this example and shows that in general, the trinitarian formula must be used. That is what I want to shine a light on.

For the Mormons, their would be a lack of intention of doing what the Church does through Baptism, but this is another question.

You write:

*This is important: what you’re writing here is not the same as the posted topic of the thread.

Remember that there are 2 very different (though related) questions.

1. Can we baptize “in the name of Jesus”?
2. Can we baptize “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier”?

How isn’t it the same? I am interested in point n. 1. I don’t see where where point n. 2 is mention in the OP (and I wrote it).

You write:

*Question 1 is an ancient question that has been discussed fairly often over the centuries. The early Fathers disagreed, and theologians continue to disagree. *

Fathers and theologians are free to discuss the issue; still the Magisterium taught and teaches it must be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, isn’t it?

You write: Part of what keeps it an open question is that we know some early Christians used that formula

That is exactly what I am looking for. Do ou know who they were? Do we have records?

You write: Modern-day answers to the question do not quite settle the matter because even if we find documents declaring it to be an invalid formula, that is often because there is something else lacking in their baptism that also affects validity (such as a denial of the Trinity). As an example, Jehovas Witnesses use that form (although as a question, not a statement), but they also deny the Trinity, so the example (or precedent) only goes so far, and cannot be applied universally.

I am not talking about anything else but the formula itself. Surely, if the Trinity is denied, it is invalid, but apart from a wrong faith, could a Catholic be baptized in the name of Jesus?

 

[FrDavid96]

One point I’ve been trying to make is that the recent CDF documents referenced in this thread do not go towards answering your question. I simply thought that you wanted to read them anyway, and/or share them with your friend since the topic is still similar.

Let’s get back to the actual topic:

Question 1 is an ancient question that has been discussed fairly often over the centuries. The early Fathers disagreed, and theologians continue to disagree.

Fathers and theologians are free to discuss the issue; still the Magisterium taught and teaches it must be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, isn’t it?

It’s precisely the question mark at the end of your post that I want to emphasize. It has not been definitively and absolutely and unquestionably settled. As I’ve said multiple times here, it’s actually an open question. As a matter of practice, it’s settled, but the question still remains. Theologians really do disagree on the answer; and that doesn’t mean they’re being unfaithful to the magisterium (on this topic.)

Now, I know the response is going to be “but what about the documents we’ve been discussing? don’t they make it clear?” And again, I need to point out that they do not actually make it clear because (and that’s important, “because”) they weren’t directly answering your question, but instead were answering someone else’s questions about either re-naming the Trinity, or lacking a true Trinitarian faith but using the Names nonetheless.

To put that another way, we cannot take modern-day documents by the CDF (which we do not doubt in the slightest) out of their proper context and try to apply them to what was happening 1700 years ago in perhaps Egypt or Persia or Gaul. **Remember that the CDF was not being asked to assess the validity of ancient baptisms, and therefore we should not try to apply those answers to ancient baptisms. **

One thing we must consider when looking at the issue of validity is “what did the early Church do?”

We do know that there was a limited practice among early Christians (perfectly orthodox ones) of saying “I baptize you in the Name of Jesus” or “You are baptized in the Name of Jesus” or other variants. We also know that the Church Fathers were not unanimous in their answer to this question.

We must keep in mind that even if they said “I baptize in the Name of Jesus” what they meant by those words, and what they intended by those words was still an orthodox Trinitarian baptism (as opposed to contemporary usage). At least, that’s the position of some theologians, while others disagree.

I say that it’s an open question, but still the side that I take is that it must be Trinitarian. I respect the disagreements of others and I’ve presented their position.

One difficulty here is that if we were to say absolutely that baptism “in the name of Jesus” is invalid, then the unavoidable conclusion is that we would be declaring many ancient baptisms invalid. That’s not quite a road we want to do down.

 

[FrDavid96]

Further thoughts.

In the early Church, baptism “in the Name of Jesus” was an acceptable practice. Now, to be precise, in that English translation I’m reading he says “in the Name of Christ” which amounts to the same for purposes of our discussion here and now.

St Thomas answers this by saying (my paraphrase) that it was an exception that was permitted in the early Church but that essentially, we now know better.

That’s not exactly a rock-solid, indisputable argument to make.

Understand that St Thomas himself is acknowledging that such baptisms did happen and that they were indeed valid baptisms.

Third part, Question 66, article 6
newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article6

It is worth a read.

St Thomas’ final answer is “no.” Yet, we cannot dismiss the fact that he does say that such early Baptisms were valid ones.

 

[MarcoPG]

It’s precisely the question mark at the end of your post that I want to emphasize.

**Mine was a rhetorical question. I don’t have any examples of baptism in the Name of Jesus or Christ
**
We do know that there was a limited practice among early Christians (perfectly orthodox ones) of saying “I baptize you in the Name of Jesus” or “You are baptized in the Name of Jesus” or other variants.

Do you have records of that? Most scholars understand it to be “with the authority o Jesus” or “as He commanded” - this, if you are talking about the passages in Scripture.
If you look at the Didachè, however, there is no option but the Trinitarian formula.

We must keep in mind that even if they said “I baptize in the Name of Jesus” what they meant by those words, and what they intended by those words was still an orthodox Trinitarian baptism (as opposed to contemporary usage). At least, that’s the position of some theologians, while others disagree.

**Fair enough, but the form must be the right one as well, for the Sacrament to be valid.
**
I say that it’s an open question, but still the side that I take is that it must be Trinitarian. I respect the disagreements of others and I’ve presented their position.

One difficulty here is that if we were to say absolutely that baptism “in the name of Jesus” is invalid, then the unavoidable conclusion is that we would be declaring many ancient baptisms invalid. That’s not quite a road we want to do down.

**Again, the problem, often forgotten, that the form must be licit (in any time of History)
**

 

[FrDavid96]

Mine was a rhetorical question. I don’t have any examples of baptism in the Name of Jesus or Christ

St Thomas Aquinas did have them. Read what he wrote.

One example is nothing less that Acts of the Apostles 8:12. That’s rather solid evidence, theologically speaking.

He also cites St Ambrose (though I’m not sure if Ambrose was actually talking about baptism), Pope Nicholas I. I don’t have the citations myself (I won’t do all the research), but suffice it to say that there really are examples of Christians baptizing “in the Name of Jesus.” I know I’m saying “take my word for it” but please understand that in this particular case, the evidence is quite solid. No theologian would disagree that there was some practice among early Christians to baptize “in the Name of Jesus.”

And don’t just take my word for it either. Again, read the Summa. St Thomas was clearly aware that it happened. There’s really no point in debating whether or not it happened. It’s a given.

Again, the problem, often forgotten, that the form must be licit (in any time of History)

No. The form must be valid. An important distinction. The 2 are not to be confused.

One more time, back to the Summa. St Thomas wrote that those early baptisms “in the name of Jesus” were valid.

 

[MarcoPG]

St Thomas Aquinas did have them. Read what he wrote.

I couldn’t find them. Are you talking about “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”?
*
One example is nothing less that Acts of the Apostles 8:12. That’s rather solid evidence, theologically speaking.
*
Theologically speaking is not infallibly speaking; as you said, theologians desagreed. But what did the Church teach…?

12 But when rthey believed Philip as he preached good news sabout the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, rthey were baptized, both men and women

*not

as he preached good news sabout the kingdom of God and, rthey were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women.

[cum vero credidissent Philippo evangelizanti de regno Dei et nomine Iesu Christi baptizabantur viri ac mulieres]

[ote de episteusan tw filippw euaggelizomenw ta peri thV basileiaV tou qeou kai tou onomatoV tou ihsou cristou ebaptizonto andreV te kai gunaikeV]*

I would say believing in Christ’s Gospel and being baptised in His Name are two different things. THere are other places in Acts (chap. 10 for instance) where baptism in the Name of Jesus is expressed as such.

He also cites St Ambrose (though I’m not sure if Ambrose was actually talking about baptism), Pope Nicholas I. I don’t have the citations myself (I won’t do all the research), but suffice it to say that there really are examples of Christians baptizing “in the Name of Jesus.”

*That is true. And the Catholic Encyclopedia responds to these by saying, they meant the authority, not the exact formula. *

I know I’m saying “take my word for it” but please understand that in this particular case, the evidence is quite solid. No theologian would disagree that there was some practice among early Christians to baptize “in the Name of Jesus.”

As it is written in the document about the 2 different English formula, it is about salvation. Taking your word for it wouldn’t be enouh. And again, that is what the French theologian did, and I am still waiting for evidence that he says he has.

And don’t just take my word for it either. Again, read the Summa. St Thomas was clearly aware that it happened. There’s really no point in debating whether or not it happened. It’s a given.

He said it happened. Ok. Does it make it valid? Baptism in the name of the Creator happen. Are they valid? No. My question is on the first one…even if THomas would give me evidence it was valid, he wouldn’t be the Magisterium. But at any rate, he says, s you told me, “no”.

No. The form must be valid. An important distinction. The 2 are not to be confused.

*True. Sorry about that.
*
One more time, back to the Summa. St Thomas wrote that those early baptisms “in the name of Jesus” were valid.

Where?

 

[Vico]

“One more time, back to the Summa. St Thomas wrote that those early baptisms “in the name of Jesus” were valid.”

Where?

See Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 66 The sacrament of Baptism, Article 6. Whether Baptism can 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.

Reply to Objection 2. Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly.

Reply to Objection 3. Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above.

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article6

 

[MarcoPG]

See Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 66 The sacrament of Baptism, Article 6. Whether Baptism can 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.

Reply to Objection 2. Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly.

Reply to Objection 3. Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above.

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article6

I cited objection 1 in a previous post; at best, it was an exception - the reason for it is explained by S. Thomas.
This doesn’t mean it was commonly done by Christians later on. Again, if Thomas is saying that the formula was not trinitarian, and not that he meant that the special dispensation is the power of Christ given to the disciples and mostly to the Apostles through their ordination , also to distinguish between this baptism and the one of John the Baptist.

Even so, was I saying, we don’t have records of early Christians using this Jesus formula commonly, as the French theologian told me there were in the East .

 

[Vico]

MarcoPG:

I cited objection 1 in a previous post; at best, it was an exception - the reason for it is explained by S. Thomas.
This doesn’t mean it was commonly done by Christians later on. Again, if Thomas is saying that the formula was not trinitarian, and not that he meant that the special dispensation is the power of Christ given to the disciples and mostly to the Apostles through their ordination , also to distinguish between this baptism and the one of John the Baptist.

Even so, was I saying, we don’t have records of early Christians using this Jesus formula commonly, as the French theologian told me there were in the East .

So you did not ask where was it written, but where did it occur historically?

 

[MarcoPG]

So you did not ask where was it written, but where did it occur historically?

Yes and, if they used a different formula than the common one, whether they were in communion with the Church at the time or not. I would hope there are pieces of information somewhere, since the Fathers talk about them.

 

[Vico]

So you did not ask where was it written, but where did it occur historically?

Pope Nicholas I reigned as Pope from 858 to 867 A.D.

We do have various forms of baptism and not all are sacraments: water, desire, blood.

Catechism
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[MarcoPG]

Pope Nicholas I reigned as Pope from 858 to 867 A.D.

We do have various forms of baptism and not all are sacraments: water, desire, blood.

Catechism
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

I am sorry: I see no relation to the question.

I am strictly talking about the baptismal formula during a sacramental water baptism.

 

[Vico]

I am sorry: I see no relation to the question.

I am strictly talking about the baptismal formula during a sacramental water baptism.

Pope Nicholas I reigned as Pope from 858 to 867 A.D.

The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866 (Letter 99)

Chapter CIIII.

You ask about what should be done concerning many people in your country who you claim have been baptized by some Jew, though whether he is Christian or pagan you do not know. Of course, if these people have been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity or in the name of Christ alone, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,[Acts 19:5] — for as St. Ambrose explains,[32] it is one and the same thing — it is agreed that they should not be baptized again.

pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm

 

[MarcoPG]

Pope Nicholas I reigned as Pope from 858 to 867 A.D.

But how does the mention of the baptism of desire and martyrdom show that another formula during water baptism was used?

At best, it shows that in the 9th century, the Church recognised there were these possibilities to be baptised, but I never questioned that.

 

[Vico]

But how does the mention of the baptism of desire and martyrdom show that another formula during water baptism was used?

At best, it shows that in the 9th century, the Church recognised there were these possibilities to be baptised, but I never questioned that.

The second post It is to answer some of the question about where it occurred historically.

 

[MarcoPG]

The second post It is to answer some of the question about where it occurred historically.

I don’t remember: is it mentioned that it did happen while this pope was reigning? Otherwise, the mere fact he - and not another pope - mentions these cases isn’t enough to say it happened in the 9th Century.

 

[Vico]

I don’t remember: is it mentioned that it did happen while this pope was reigning? Otherwise, the mere fact he - and not another pope - mentions these cases isn’t enough to say it happened in the 9th Century.

Khan Boris did not want to associate with the patriarch in Constantinople Photius so sent a legation to Rome to open negotiations with Pope Nicholas I (858-67) about Bulgaria and Letter 99 was sent back to Bulgaria to Khan Boris. Those comments about baptism were for that time.

 

[MarcoPG]

…] Letter 99 was sent back to Bulgaria to Khan Boris. Those comments about baptism were for that time.

Would it be the letter in question?

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp

If it is the case, on the baptism formula, it says: "Chapter XV.

…]Now then, if they were baptized in the name of the highest and individuated Trinity, they are clearly Christians, and it is not fitting that they be baptized again by any Christian…]

Chapter CIIII.

…] Of course, if these people have been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity or in the name of Christ alone, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,[Acts 19:5] — for as St. Ambrose explains,[32] it is one and the same thing

Pope Nicholas says IF they are baptized in the name of Christ. It is not conclusive about such baptisms having happened.
Acts 19:5 says: “5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But again, it may be “with the authority of Jesus”

S. Ambrose says: “44. Let us now consider whether as we read that the sacrament of baptism in the Name of Christ was complete, …]. If you name Christ, you imply both God the Father by Whom the Son was anointed, and the Son Himself Who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit with Whom He was anointed.” …]

…]So those baptized in the Name of Christ are held to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if, that is, there is belief in the Three Persons, otherwise the baptism will be null. This also applies to baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit…]

Fair enough to say that if we mention One, the other Two are implied. So we might have a valid formula in the Name of Christ, or in the Name of the Holy Spirit then. And why not in the Name of the Father, as long as the Trinity isn’t denied.
The thing is, The 2008 document says it is needed to express distinctly the Three. It doesn’t help the case, knowing that the Didachè doesn’t give other formulas than the trinitarian one, in the 1st Century. That is a paradoxal situation, even if we speak of a different of times.

 

[Vico]

Would it be the letter in question?

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp

If it is the case, on the baptism formula, it says: "Chapter XV.

…]Now then, if they were baptized in the name of the highest and individuated Trinity, they are clearly Christians, and it is not fitting that they be baptized again by any Christian…]

Chapter CIIII.

…] Of course, if these people have been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity or in the name of Christ alone, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,[Acts 19:5] — for as St. Ambrose explains,[32] it is one and the same thing

Pope Nicholas says IF they are baptized in the name of Christ. It is not conclusive about such baptisms having happened.
Acts 19:5 says: “5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But again, it may be “with the authority of Jesus”

S. Ambrose says: “44. Let us now consider whether as we read that the sacrament of baptism in the Name of Christ was complete, …]. If you name Christ, you imply both God the Father by Whom the Son was anointed, and the Son Himself Who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit with Whom He was anointed.” …]

…]So those baptized in the Name of Christ are held to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if, that is, there is belief in the Three Persons, otherwise the baptism will be null. This also applies to baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit…]

Fair enough to say that if we mention One, the other Two are implied. So we might have a valid formula in the Name of Christ, or in the Name of the Holy Spirit then. And why not in the Name of the Father, as long as the Trinity isn’t denied.
The thing is, The 2008 document says it is needed to express distinctly the Three. It doesn’t help the case, knowing that the Didachè doesn’t give other formulas than the trinitarian one, in the 1st Century. That is a paradoxal situation, even if we speak of a different of times.

The Catholic Church can determine what is acceptable, and this may change.