Nix to Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifer

[johnnykins]

The Holy See stated today that “Baptism” in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier is INVALID.

212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/21756.php?index=21756&lang=en

 

[Brendan]

Here is the English text

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.

Basically, it means anyone who was Baptized using that wierd formula has to be re Baptized (not a conditional Baptism)

 

[johnnykins]

Here is the English text

Basically, it means anyone who was Baptized using that wierd formula has to be re Baptized (not a conditional Baptism)

More technically correct - they need to be Baptized because they never were Baptized.

 

[Chovy]

This is interesting. How would most of us know if we were baptized using the wrong words? I doubt my mother or godparents remember. I don’t even remeber for my own godchildren.

 

[roanoker]

My denomination, Presbyterian USA, is playing around the edges of changing the words in the Holy Trinity to new age stuff like this, sort of in the name of Huey, Duey, and Louie. So far its been rejected, but the way we’re going, they’ll probably win in the long run. Good for Pope Bennie. I’m more impressed with him every day .Roanoker

 

[KathleenElsie]

Do you think that the priests that used the wrong form will have the courtesy to get in contact with the people that need to be Baptized?
I wonder how many there are that will need to be Baptized in the proper manner that think they already are?

 

[CathFaith1]

Do you think that the priests that used the wrong form will have the courtesy to get in contact with the people that need to be Baptized?

Now knowing the truth without question - that all such baptisms are invalid - a priest who cared for the Salvation of those unbaptized and his own soul must do the right thing.

“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.

Zenit

 

[KathleenElsie]

Oh what a mess this is. It is just more proof to me that the priests and lay persons need to be better educated in the TRUE FORM of ALL the SACRAMENTS. It is not the 1960’s free for all and do your own thing. This the Holy Mother Church we are concerned about and the people the Church is responsible for.

Everything from baptism to marriage and beyond is invalid and stolen from those that were IMHO cheated of their rightful baptismal rite.

 

[frommi]

It’s kind of fascinating as far as the consequences of this go…

Like, if you go to rebaptize someone after they’ve reached the age of reason…do you have to confirm them to…

“Bad news son, you were never baptized…good news, you won’t have to do community service to get confirmed”

 

[KathleenElsie]

It’s kind of fascinating as far as the consequences of this go…

Like, if you go to rebaptize someone after they’ve reached the age of reason…do you have to confirm them to…

“Bad news son, you were never baptized…good news, you won’t have to do community service to get confirmed”

No need to confess the sins done till the baptism. So no matter what they did from birth till truly being baptized will be washed away at the baptism.

 

[frommi]

No need to confess the sins done till the baptism. So no matter what they did from birth till truly being baptized will be washed away at the baptism.

I wasn’t talking about confession…but canonically if they are at the age of reason they need to get all 3 sacraments of intitiation at one time.

 

[sunflower74]

But how will anyone know if they were or not?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Are any of you really surprised that the Holy See would say anything different. Jesus himself gave us that formula.
Deacon Ed b

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Are any of you really surprised that the Holy See would say anything different. Jesus himself gave us that formula.
Deacon Ed B

 

[KathleenElsie]

Are any of you really surprised that the Holy See would say anything different. Jesus himself gave us that formula.
Deacon Ed B

Nope no suprise here. And your post was worth reading twice .

 

[childofmary1143]

I wasn’t talking about confession…but canonically if they are at the age of reason they need to get all 3 sacraments of intitiation at one time.

Would confession be actually necessary? When one is baptized they are as pure as anyone who has received confession.

This is a HUGE mess. How many Priests/people would remember what words were used during a baptism. How many baptisms are done in a parish each year?

 

[pianoplayingmom]

This is a HUGE mess. How many Priests/people would remember what words were used during a baptism. How many baptisms are done in a parish each year?

You can be sure the priests will remember what they said. They’re the ones who changed the words and knew they shouldn’t. I would guess the parents/god parents will remember, given it would have been odd to hear those words. (I was once at a retreat where the nun giving it used this verbiage to say the Sign of the Cross. I found it odd and still remember it.) You are correct. It IS a huge mess.

 

[H_Opey]

Does anyone know how to go about finding out if the right formula was used?

Let’s assume that the priests are not going to willingly admit to the femist formula…I can’t remember and I was 13. Neither can my aunt and my godfather is dead and the priest is long gone. Is someone going to say “IF you were baptized between the years of 1970-1999 please come to the Easter Vigil to be rebapitzed and to receive the sacrament of confirmation.” ???

Anyone? Will this be the Bishops call or if you really question it, ask for the sacraments again?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Think of the mess this will make of how we related to Protestants. Right now we consider anyone who has been baptized to be Christian. But if protestant denominations start using this formula, does that mean they are no longer Christians?!
Again, what a mess!

 

[CathFaith1]

Let’s assume that the priests are not going to willingly admit to the femist formula…I can’t remember and I was 13. Neither can my aunt and my godfather is dead and the priest is long gone. Is someone going to say “IF you were baptized between the years of 1970-1999 please come to the Easter Vigil to be rebapitzed and to receive the sacrament of confirmation.” ???

Anyone?

In that scenario one should be most concerned for a priest not willingly admit such an error. Especially if one was protecting themselves due to pride. Yet lets hope all do admit such errors.

It seems if an assumption has to be made it’s for validity.

However, unless a witness at the baptism knows that an incorrect formula was used, “it is assumed they used the right formula,” he said. “The presumption is the obvious truth that the baptism is valid.”

United States Catholic Conference:
Vatican has clarified when Baptisms are Valid