Posted on 02/29/2008 5:28:30 PM PST by Balt
Most Eastern Catholics would not be aware of this -- likewise many Roman Catholics in this area who have not traveled extensively -- but the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is actually two Churches: one East of the Rockies and one West. With a few notable exceptions, a Mass attended in, say, Seatle would be unrecognizable if one's only experience of the Mass of the Roman Rite was in one's home parish in Backwater Creek, Pennsylvania. Ditto for the celebration of other sacraments. I am reminded of a YouTube video of some months ago showing a baptism being performed in the Cathedral of a west-coast diocese: the priest -- in this case, the rector of the cathedral -- stood in a pool, waste deep, along with the baby's parents and sponsors. It was they, not the priest, who submerged the child in the pool three times, while the priest recited the baptismal formula: ". . . I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," carefully reformed to avoid any sexist overtones. I am told that this formula has been common for some time in the "West-of-the-Rockies Roman Catholic Church" (our Church, of course, baptizes by immersion as is our ancient custom, but we don't invite the family to take a dip as well -- and you can bet I'm not going for a swim either).
Now take a gander at this Catholic World News story from just today:
Vatican, Feb. 29, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has warned that Baptism is not valid when the celebrant uses a popular new formula.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," is not a valid Christian sacrament. The invalid formula, the Vatican statement points out, arises from feminist ideology, and an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic." However, the revised formula can "undermine faith in the Trinity," the CDF says. Citing the Gospel of St. Matthew, the CDF notes that Jesus ordered his apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." That formula is an "adequate expression of Trinitarian faith" and a response to Christ's command, the CDF notes; "approximate formulae are unacceptable."
Anyone who has been baptized using that formula should be re-baptized, the Vatican document states. For canonical purposes, the CDF states, people who were baptized with that new formula should be considered unbaptized.
The February 29 document was a response to questions from the English-speaking world. The Vatican notes that while the novel formula has been used mostly by English-language clerics, the same formula could be expressed in other languages. The statement from the CDF was specifically approved by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican notes. The document was signed by Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the CDF.
Just to be clear, the Holy See's directive, while it cites a feminist agenda as the reason for the spurious formula, does not issue the correction for that reason; it's the invalidity of the approximated formula with which they are concerned.
Phil Lawler, over at CWNews, in his weekly e-mail bulletin, openly wonders with what urgency parents of children so baptized will be sought out and their children re-baptized as the Holy See directs. My guess is not much. After all, if one is willing from the onset to be so cavalier with sacramental forumlae, the notion of validity is probably not a priority. As I said a few posts below, to some priests, baptism is not the cleansing of Original Sin, but merely a celebration of new life; or, to put it in their own words, "It's not the hocus pocus; it's what we get out of it" -- what we get out of it obviously not being Sanctifying Grace.
Baptism, of course, is no light matter. It is, in fact, necessary for salvation. Of course, if one doesn't believe in salvation -- or, conversely, damnation for that matter -- then the "validity thingy" is irrelevant, isn't it? The odd thing here is that the dispute is not with atheists, or even with members of some liberal Christian sect, but with people who believe themselves to be Catholics.
what is it about priests and boxing?
“. . . I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,”
&&&
WTH!? Check this out.
What if the priest follows the prescribed formula to the letter, but he himself is in a state of mortal sin?
What if you grew up honestly believing that you were baptized into the RC church, then in late middle age discovered that you never had been?
The baptism is valid. This is precisely the donatist controversy that arose in late 4c.
What you are referring to was an issue that arose in the early 4th century where a Bishop in the Latin/Western Church in North Africa was challenged because he had lapsed in the faith during Roman persecutions in the about 312 AD. The Donatist argued that sacraments admiinstered by Bishops and Priests in a state of “grave or mortal sin” were thus invalid. The Church rejected this heresy (St. Augustine himself devoted many of his theological works against this heretical idea) and stated that the Sacraments are totally dependent on the actions of Chhrist and are “ex opere operato” (meaning by the work done), meaning that the sacraments are effective by means of the sacramental rite itself, and not because of the worthiness of the minister or the participant. In other words, Christ is source of the Grace administered in the Sacraments and the Church and ordained Priest is the visible instrument through which God’s Grace is communicated/gvien to the person.
The Donatist schism and heresy was never resolved in St. Augustine’s time (360 to 430 AD) and would persist until such time as Islam spread over Catholic North Africa and became the dominant force in that part of the word, which it is still today.
Regards
So it’s really just the ritual that matters?
The second question was the validity of sacraments confected by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid: by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as: ex opere operantis — Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it. The Catholic position was (and is): ex opere operato — from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To the Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.
See also Donatists.
How odd to think that Christ would find it necessary to use someone damned to hell (according to RC doctrine) in order to dispense His grace on others.
The priest has to intend to celebrate a valid sacrament, but his own state of grace is neither here or there in this, as all he is doing is connecting the faithful with the sanctifying grace. While it is, perhaps strange, it should nto be so to a student of the Gospel where time and again the Holy Apostles found themselves falling short of the task Christ chose them for, yet — excepting Judas, — found strength to repent and soldier on.
T Minus Four:
Your argument falls on its face on several fronts. 1) The fact that a person at any given point is in a state of “grave sin” does not mean that they will not respond to God’s Grace and repent, 2) Only God, at the moment of a person’s death, knows the state of each persons sould and heart, etc, and thus only God can administer a just judgement as to who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. For this reason, the Catholic Church has never said who is in Hell, as that was not part of God’s revelation. All the Church can say, based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is that those who in “this life” reject God’s Grace and die in a state of rejection of God will go to hell, whoever those individuals are.
Regards
While it is, perhaps strange, it should nto be so to a student of the Gospel where time and again the Holy Apostles found themselves falling short of the task Christ chose them for, yet — excepting Judas, — found strength to repent and soldier on.
Odd that you would refer to the scripture to back up your claim since no where in the scripture does it tell that any person other than Jesus is needed to dispense grace...
Nor, do you get grace from baptism or anything else...
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Receiving grace by or through a priest is a fallacy...Receiving grace for being being baptized is another fallacy...
You receive grace by FAITH in Jesus Christ...It is a free gift to ALL who will accept it, administered by Jesus alone, and can be dispensed to you whether you are driving your car or sitting on your Throne in your bathroom or dodging bullets in the backstreets of Bhagdad...
If you think you received grace by getting sprinkled on by a 'holy person', all that means is that you don't have any...
And I wasn't arguing at all. I just observed how strange that such a man might have to be the intermediary between me and my Father God.
Iscool:
You are stating the “Roman road”, which is an incorrect understanding of Justification that has not historical precedent before Luther and Calvin. Sorry. and how did you accept the Faith, did God force it on you?, thus destroying human freedom, which God gave us in creation, though our free will has been distorted by original sin. Did you ask for it and it was given? If you asked for it without God’s initial Grace, this hints at Pelegianism since you were the cause or the one who initiated the justification.
Jesus is the one acting in the Sacraments and sacramental theology is linked to the beautiful doctrine of the “Incarnation”, which sadly it seems many Protestants seem to not fully embrace. The Redemptin of mankind was ot bone by invisible means. Throughout the OT, God formed covenants with his people and these covenants were done with external symbols and signs (physical signs). All of these convenants prefigured Christ who through the incarnation, God dealt with man in a manner that was best suited for mans human nature.
Christ founded a Church (Mat 16:18) which is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) and the Church was established to be a visible community and thus a visible “sign” of Christ’s presence in the world, thus the idea of a visible Church flows from the core doctrine of the “incarnation” Since Christ was incarnate, which is how he saved us, and he founded a Church to be a visible community in the world, it follows that the Church should have visible signs of sacred mysteries. This is the reason for the sacramental system, as a sacrament has been defined since the time of St. Augustine as “the visible form of invisible grace and as a sign of a sacred thing”. St. Thomas Aquinas would later right the principal reason for the sacraments is found in man as it is the nature of man to bed by things corporeal and perceptible to things spiritual adn intelligible. Thus, God provides for everything in accordance with its nature thus God provided the means of salvation for man through sacraments.
In summary, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the incarnation, and thus the paschal mystery, shapes is doctrine and understanding of the CHurch which thus shapes it doctrine of the sacraments. You as a Calvinist may not agree, fine, great, but the Catholic doctrine is the one of the NT and Patristics and the Great Councils of the Early Church (Nicea 325, Constantinopile 381, Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451).
Pax Domine Christi
Edit to my own post:
The redemption of man was “not done” by invisible means.
Sorry.
>> You are stating the “Roman road”, which is an incorrect understanding of Justification that has not historical precedent before Luther and Calvin. <<
Actually, Luther believed in the necessity of receiving the sacraments; the concordant between Catholics and Lutherans clarified that sacraments are grace, and not works. Luther preached forecefully to condemn those who said you could be saved without being baptised, and, especially, to condemn the Anabaptists who, at Luther’s time and place, had lapsed into Donatism.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg...FAITH, BELIEF, FAITH, BELIEF...To tell someone they must be baptized (and by a priest at that), be a Catholic, participate in the Eucharist to be saved etc., is BONKERS...
God doesn't agree with you...
YAWN!!!
Seems this is the official postion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.