CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of 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»
QUESTIONS
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.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Thanks to Rorate Caeli, there was a very worrying trend a few years ago, particularly in the US were certain priests were denying the the plain words of Christ in the scriptures and inventing there own formulae for baptism, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has no0w ruled that not only are these baptisms illicit but also invalid, and those who have received such baptism should be baptised properly.
11 comments:
Isn't it terrible that Rome has to make a statement about this, instead of the local Bishop sorting it out.
Serious goings on..
I feel sorry for the families who presented their children in good faith to be baptised by these idiotic priests.
It also good to see that the congregation is so firm and clear!
fr paul harrison
Isn't this somewhat dangerous though - what of languages where Father, Son and most especially Holy Spirit are simply not available ?
I understand that analogy is forbidden , it is now proclaimed it invalidates - but does this now mean :
a] there shoud be a list of languages where baptism in the vernacular is forbidden.
b] that a definite formula becomes mandatory for every language. ?
This absurd development of using 'inclusive' language in the baptismal formula is likely to cause chaos in the future and will lead to further invalid sacraments. When, in years to come, confirmation, marriage or ordination follows what evidence will there be, beyond an entry in the baptism register, that the correct form was used? Few present at the time will have noticed the difference and it is extremely unlikely that the kind of priest who uses the inclusive form will bother to round up those he has baptized as he will believe he was (and is) justified in using it. Now that many priests operate on a free-for-all basis it is unlikely that they will take notice of this direction as documents from Rome are frequenrly tacitly ignored.
ok, if the vaticn is taking the gloves off regarding this inane form of non-baptism,
when is it going to kick-ass regarding the rite of installation of bishops ?
I haven't much time for the sedevacantist mob, their pro-multis baloney etc; but their points regarding the 'allusion' form within the rite where once it stated categorically what was occurring - needs fixing !!
OTSOTA,
The issue is ultimately whether the giver of the sacraments is doing so with the mind of the Church, making up one's own form isn't.
I concur father, but previously implication was invariably valid but illicit.
now we have a categorical clarification that this is indeed not the case [understandable given the declaration regarding mormon pseudo-baptisms a few years back] surely we should insist on clarity or the lingua prima where there is no transliteral congruity within the languages ? suppose there's some central african or polynesian language where the Holy Spirit is defined as "jumping corpse that makes the rains come" ? or something of that ilk ?
I'm not trying to be specious or pedantic - but think about it - what we consider obvious when it comes to predication of nomenclature ; might be anything but in other languages ; which is why I suggest we ought to be careful...
Good for the Congregation, emphasizing the Matter and Form of the Sacrament!
This is one of the results of extreme feminism, which we see (and hear) regularly here in the US. Not only are all male references to God eschewed in the Readings, but even the Proper of the Mass is affected.
When a priest intones: "Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ..." instead of "Through Him, with Him , in Him..." you know where he is coming from...
What a horrible thing. Who would want themselves or their children to be baptised according to such a stupid politically correct formula.
as for the question as to baptism in languages that do not have a word for one f the persons of the trinity... in that case should the priest not then be celebrating the Sacraments in Latin and not the Vernacular for every Liturgy begins with the Signum Crucis
Post a Comment