Loading ...
The way of protestantism, no?
An AP article which I read this morning reports: “At some Presbyterian churches the Holy Trinity — ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ — will be out. ‘Mother, Child and Womb’ is in.” But that’s only one among many “educational” suggestions for congregations to use in the future; there are others such as: “Rock, Redeemer, Friend,” and “Lover, Beloved, Love” and “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier” and “King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love”. Of course, one concern driving these suggestions is the need to eliminate any gender insensitive language with which the olden formulae were laden. Yet that’s not the only concern, as evidenced by the very gender insensitive Prince of Peace suggestion; why not Princess of Peace? But that might be reverse discrimination or sound too much like a bad children’s cartoon heroine. Rather, in all this, the Presbyterians are looking for “fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God.”
Of course, the protestants are always finding creative, new ways to take up again the oldest of heresies; despite all their talk about forward thinking and progressivity, they might just as well be called anitquarian societies, seeing as they like to live again the thrill of being on the receiving end of an ecumenical council’s condemnations.
They’ve got some dancing girls, though, as the picture with this post indicates, taken from 217th General Assembly web page, which would make the Patriarch of West quite jealous!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
It was to also point out that even if we use the invocation of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in administering Baptism today it does not invalidate Baptism 1,000,000 years in the future if the exact words are altered but mean the same thing.
Actually, the JW’s don’t use the Trinitarian formula in baptism. And some other groups, like the Pentecostals, also don’t. (I don’t know about the Unitarians. Do they baptize at all?) So those are easy cases of people who need to be baptized when they convert. Johnboy: where do you get this idea of there being an exception for baptizing in the name of Christ (which is what the Pentecostals do)?
Actually, I think it’s relatively rare that a church’s baptism is ruled invalid for the reason Johnboy is mentioning: an improper understanding of what the sacrament means. This would fall under the third criterion for a valid baptism: the baptizer must “intend to do what the Church does” when they baptize. You must understand that traditionally the bar was not set very high in terms of the understanding required to fill this criterion. The Baltimore Catechism emphasizes that even, for example, a non-Christian nurse who baptizes an infant in danger of death at the request of the mother, will do so validly so long as she has a vague intention that whatever she’s doing be whatever the Church does in this rite. She doesn’t really have to understand it.
I think, in order for a baptism to be invalid, Rome has to have the sense that the baptizer had a very specifically *wrong* intention. Hence, the LDS Church uses the proper formula and the proper matter, but their baptisms have been ruled invalid. Often this is explained by saying that the Mormons have an incorrect understanding of God. I find this only moderately persuasive; while it’s certainly true that Mormons have many wrong ideas about God (for example, they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply three separate entities, not three persons in one Trinity) it’s hard to say how much difference this makes the understanding of run-of-the-mill faithful who just read the Bible. And then there are heterodox Mormons like my father, who *does* believe in the Trinity and who baptized me; I explained this to the priest who rebaptized me, but he still didn’t think that my Catholic baptism should be conditional. I imagine that one of the issues is probably a consideration of reciprocity. If a Catholic decides to become a Lutheran or a Presbyterian, those churches will take his Catholic baptism as valid, which indicates that they see themselves as “doing what Catholics do” when they baptize. A Catholic who becomes a Mormon will go through exactly the same process as a Hindu would, complete with the same baptismal rite. If the Mormons themselves view ‘making new Mormons’ and ‘making new Catholics’ as entirely distinct processes, then that might imply that they could not have a rightly ordered intention when they baptize.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.”
Clara:
St. Thomas Aquinas…However, I think he notes it is no longer acceptable per Christ’s injunction in Matthew (?) alluded by Peter in Dublin.
That is why I said “was” not is.
Just a thought. I could get references later.
For all the confused folks that is one could have been baptised with the injuction “in the name of Christ” by a special act of God.
Clara…Don’t bring up the issue of babies and Baptism with regard to the recipient’s intention. I did not refer to that particular case…only converts.
But it would apply if the person/church who administers the Baptism does not have the proper intentions, right? Or not right?
I was thinking many Protestants do not hold the same belief of Baptism as Catholics…that is it is a literal cleaning of the soul. Does this invalidate baptism? I believe so but do not know for certain. Some expert tell me.
Paul says “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13) implying that baptisms were done in the Name of Christ. Peter also says “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Not sure what translation I pasted them from. Neither, of course, neccesarily means that a trinitarian formula was not used.
Clara,
Additionally I did not want to get into nitty gritty details regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Baptism reflected in Peter of Dublins response…it was to agree with his point.
But thanks for the education.
Anyway Johnboy maybe that’s where you heard of baptisms in Christ’s name?
Peter,
I think the reason is that God sees the goodness of the act…that is they are baptised in Christ’s name (that means the way He intends) even though it was not proper…St. Thomas Aquinas I think refers to this case as not acceptable today due to the understanding of the Trinity and the fact that the Bible was established well after times when this was acceptable (thus the Bible quote isn’t exactly the reason?)…of course Thomas Aquinas (the Church apparently holds his interpretation) notes Baptism in that case was ultimately by a special act of God. I am not 100% sure, though and could be wrong.
I should’ve said Thomas Aquinas notes the reason the baptism in the name of Christ is not acceptable is due to that fact that Matthew’s (?)Gospel refers to Baptism in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (current translation).
Will someone please cite the actual passage from St. Thomas Aquinas when referring to him?
You nark!
I said I will refer to the passage when I get a chance (i.e., when I get done with work and back home and all is well!)…
ST III.Q66.6, corpus:
“As stated above (64, 3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.”
Response ad 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.”
Thanks, Raindear.
No problem. (:
“Mother, Child, Womb.”
“Lover, Beloved, and love.”
“Rock, Redeemer, Friend.”
“Creator, Savior, Sanctifier.”
…
This sounds like religious versions of ‘rock, paper, scissors.’
Oh yes, and I noted Clara’s (aka: smarty-pants’) reference to my comment:
“However, even the words could be proclaimed precisely but the intention is misplaced because of incorrect understanding.”
And her remarks that:
“The Baltimore Catechism emphasizes that even, for example, a non-Christian nurse who baptizes an infant in danger of death at the request of the mother, will do so validly so long as she has a vague intention that whatever she’s doing be whatever the Church does in this rite. She doesn’t really have to understand it.”
As noted by Peter of Dublin, the intent was to direct the issue to those who actually do misunderstand things when adminstering Baptism. This is in contrast to those who do not understand (and one would further note: but have the intention of doing what the Church teaches explicitly) when administering Baptism. I would further note that it would seem the valid non-Catholic Christian Baptisms are for those who administer/recieve the Sacrament with the proper understanding (and one would further note: and have the intention of doing what the Church teaches implicitly, if not explicitly). There is a difference. Sorry to be a word nark. Toodles.
I suppose there’s that bizarre exception whereas one could actually misunderstand what Baptism is and have the intention of doing what the Church teaches. But how many non-Catholics who actually hold an erroneous position on Baptism (one would presume a position contrary to the de fide truths of the sacrament) would actually wish to Baptise with the intention of doing what the Church teaches? Probably not many. Hence, with many Protestants the apparent wise notion that a conditional Baptism be performed.
As far as the formula of baptism is concerned, it seems (though someone may have more specific information about this) that in the East a declaratory formula (”I baptise you…”) is not used but rather something to the effect of, “May you be baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”. Butit is still valid because the Trinity is correctly identified and the formula makes clear what the intended effect of the action is.
anyone with the use of reason can validly baptize. That means a Jew, a Mohammedan, a Protestant, a pagan, an atheist, even Novus Ordonarians like Johnboy.
Two Jews sitting on an airplane about to crash can both baptize each other and die Catholics in the state of grace and having committed no actual sins since baptism.
JSP, good to have you back!