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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Feminist? I doubt that the clergy who use different terms for the Trinity would define themselves as feminist; but that point is not under discussion here. I doubt if the RCC is going to get into an argument with Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc, over liturgical terminology when considering for their own purposes who is baptized. It’s a basic assumption that these churches offer sacramental, trinitarian baptisms. Which they all do.
V
Vico
Guest
David Gregson, PhD, member of EWTN Theology Department writes:Increasingly, though, baptisms in liberal Protestant denominations might be invalid because of the use of the formula Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier to deny the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son.
…on substituting “Creator,” “Redeemer,” “Sanctifier” for “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” we might also point out that the substitution smacks of tri-theism. It presupposes that each of the three Persons acts exclusively of the other two in carrying out His own particular work…
… “Creator” doesn’t denote the Father alone, even though it is usually “appropriated” to Him. Likewise, even though “Redeemer” is usually appropriated to the Son, it doesn’t really distinguish Him from the Father, since the plan of redemption originated in the Father (cf. 1 Cor 1:30), and it is applied to us by the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30).
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=340862
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Interesting interpretation. I doubt anyone using the alternative language would declare it to be as Dr Gregson suggests, however. Or even consider that it would unintentionally suggest that.David Gregson, PhD, member of EWTN Theology Department writes:
…on substituting “Creator,” “Redeemer,” “Sanctifier” for “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” we might also point out that the substitution smacks of tri-theism. It presupposes that each of the three Persons acts exclusively of the other two in carrying out His own particular work…
… “Creator” doesn’t denote the Father alone, even though it is usually “appropriated” to Him. Likewise, even though “Redeemer” is usually appropriated to the Son, it doesn’t really distinguish Him from the Father, since the plan of redemption originated in the Father (cf. 1 Cor 1:30), and it is applied to us by the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30).
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=340862
V
Vico
Guest
In 2008 the A New Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism contained:Interesting interpretation. I doubt anyone using the alternative language would declare it to be as Dr Gregson suggests, however. Or even consider that it would unintentionally suggest that.
The trinitarian faith is not adequately expressed when the three divine Persons are designated by names common to the three, while attributing by appropriation each individual name to a Person. And this is what happens in the formulas considered by the Response. All three divine Persons are Creator, Sanctifier, Liberator, and Sustainer. “The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine Persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too does it have only one and the same operation.”[21] Redemption is also the work of the entire Trinity as its first cause even though the name Redeemer is proper to Christ as man because, in his humanity, he suffered and died on the Cross.[22]
Trinitarian faith calls for careful precision in language. If the substitution of the names of the divine Persons in the baptismal formula by other names that are proper to each of them (Parent, Child and Issue from both) had given rise to such serious doubt among theologians that Thomas Aquinas considered it invalid,[23] then there is all the more reason to hold that what is conferred with the formulas considered in the questions presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not true Baptism.
Therefore, a person who performs a baptism with one of these invalid formulas defrauds the recipient of this action.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
So then the question becomes how the RCC is going to monitor other denominations that MIGHT be using alternative liturgical language on an occasional basis in an occasional parish. It doesn’t seem very practical to me.In 2008 the A New Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism contained:
The trinitarian faith is not adequately expressed when the three divine Persons are designated by names common to the three, while attributing by appropriation each individual name to a Person. And this is what happens in the formulas considered by the Response. All three divine Persons are Creator, Sanctifier, Liberator, and Sustainer. “The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine Persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too does it have only one and the same operation.”[21] Redemption is also the work of the entire Trinity as its first cause even though the name Redeemer is proper to Christ as man because, in his humanity, he suffered and died on the Cross.[22]
Trinitarian faith calls for careful precision in language. If the substitution of the names of the divine Persons in the baptismal formula by other names that are proper to each of them (Parent, Child and Issue from both) had given rise to such serious doubt among theologians that Thomas Aquinas considered it invalid,[23] then there is all the more reason to hold that what is conferred with the formulas considered in the questions presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not true Baptism.
Therefore, a person who performs a baptism with one of these invalid formulas defrauds the recipient of this action.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html
At the present, the RCC names denominations that use the Trinitarian formula and accepts their sacrament as valid. Who is going to change that?
V
Vico
Guest
The Bishop in his jurisdiction would likely give instructions.So then the question becomes how the RCC is going to monitor other denominations that MIGHT be using alternative liturgical language on an occasional basis in an occasional parish. It doesn’t seem very practical to me.
At the present, the RCC names denominations that use the Trinitarian formula and accepts their sacrament as valid. Who is going to change that?
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Based on… what?The Bishop in his jurisdiction would likely give instructions.
V
Vico
Guest
One such document is based uponBased on… what?
JOHN M. HUELS, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry (Third
Edition),Quincy, IL, Franciscan Press, 2002, pp. 331-333; and from W.H. WOESTMAN, Canon Law of the Sacraments for Parish
Ministry, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 2007, pp. 367-369.
Others are issued by the Office of Worship and Christian Initiation with no particular reference documents.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
As far as I am aware protestants have only two ‘sacraments’, baptism and communion.OP, I doubt that it makes a huge difference now whether the first baptism was valid. If not, the Methodist baptism almost certainly was, as Methodists use the correct form and matter. The Catholic Church would not baptize you again. You would be received by Confirmation and First Communion. From the Catholic point of view, Protestants only have two valid sacraments, baptism and holy matrimony. I only comment on your thread because I have family who converted from the United Methodist Church.
Which protestant church has holy matrimony as a sacrament?
Even in the RC church, matrimony was the last to be added to the canon.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That question does not yet have an answer.Based on… what?
If the Catholic priest has some reason to think that the non-Catholic minister did not use the proper Trinitarian formula, then he must inquire. For example, if “Rev. so-and-so” has a reputation for not mentioning the Trinity, it’s reason to dig deeper.
At the moment, though, there’s no way of actually verifying that the Trinitarian form was used. For me, locally, I’ve spoken casually with a few Anglican clergy about this. They’ve assured me that all their clergy are absolutely required to use the Trinitarian formula. That’s reassuring–for the moment. It doesn’t give me much comfort about other denominations, or even other Anglicans outside my own area.
Your question is an important one.
We must find some way of dealing with this. At the moment, though, the Catholic Church simply does not have an answer to that question.
We need one…yesterday.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Note that I said “from the Catholic point of view.” Protestants may not recognize matrimony as a sacrament, but the Catholic Church teaches that every valid marriage of two baptized Christians is sacramental.As far as I am aware protestants have only two ‘sacraments’, baptism and communion.
Which protestant church has holy matrimony as a sacrament?
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I wonder how many Catholic clergy are even aware that this is a problem. Not only are there some liberal mainline Protestant denominations that use “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” as their (invalid) formula, but it’s not unheard of to come across evangelical, non-denominational-type baptisms that do not use the Trinitarian formula.At the moment, though, there’s no way of actually verifying that the Trinitarian form was used. For me, locally, I’ve spoken casually with a few Anglican clergy about this. They’ve assured me that all their clergy are absolutely required to use the Trinitarian formula. That’s reassuring–for the moment. It doesn’t give me much comfort about other denominations, or even other Anglicans outside my own area.
Your question is an important one.
We must find some way of dealing with this. At the moment, though, the Catholic Church simply does not have an answer to that question.
We need one…yesterday.
A couple of years ago, an Evangelical friend of mine posted a video on Facebook of her son’s baptism, which I watched. Sadly, even though I know that they believe in the Trinity, the minister did not baptize him “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” He said something like “I baptize you upon your profession of faith,” etc., but did not use the Trinitarian formula. I think it was likely out of ignorance–they view baptism as a purely symbolic event, and therefore it is not that important to them to use exactly the right words.
I am not saying that the majority of Evangelical churches do this–I would hope that it is a rare occurrence–but the fact that it can and does occur even in Trinitarian-believing churches should alert the Catholic Church to investigate the baptism of new candidates a little more closely.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.