Today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered two recent disputed questions regarding allowable baptismal formulas and what to do with persons "baptized" using them:
Made public today were the responses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard formulae.
The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'"?
The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"
The responses are: "To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative".
In other words: "no", baptism may not be validly celebrated using the above-mentioned substitutions for the traditional "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" phrasing, and "yes", people baptized with this substitute phrasing must be baptized absolutely, as opposed to conditionally (conditionally would imply that their previous baptism might have been valid. The CDF says they are absolutely not valid).
Pope Benedict personally approved these answers. Cardinal Levada, who is in charge of CDF, and Archbishop Amato, the no. 2 in charge of CDF, explain the decision (underlining mine):
An attached note explains that the responses "concern the validity of Baptism conferred with two English-language formulae within the ambit of the Catholic Church. ... Clearly, the question does not concern English but the formula itself, which could also be expressed in another language".
"Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", the note continues, "obeys Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew. ... The baptismal formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith, approximate formulae are unacceptable.
"Variations to the baptismal formula - using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons - as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology", being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names. Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity".
I'm glad the response makes clear that this false practice came about because of "so-called feminist theology" (theology is theology, there is no such thing as "feminist" or "masculine" theology).
And if you had any doubt about the theological weight this opinion holds, consider:
"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. 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-baptised'".
That's pretty airtight, but won't prevent the obligatory outraged editorial responses.
Trust me, they're coming.
Since these persons who have been baptised in the above-described manner are not actually baptized, it is my understanding that they must not only be "re-baptized" but also re-admitted to the other Sacraments, including (notably) Confirmation. I wonder about Matrimony & Holy Orders....
Canonist Ed Peters summarizes the background to this debate, and makes some helpful comments:
"The rules on baptism are meant to be followed"
You might recall when I blogged against using baptismal formulae contrived to avoid masculine nouns for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I said back in 2004 that such ‘baptisms’ were invalid, and that people who received ‘baptism’ under them were not even Christian, let alone Catholic.
Looks like CDF agrees.
This type of invalid "baptism" was most notably practiced in Australia over the past decade:
And for a glimpse into the mindset that prompted this liturgical abuse, consider these lines from the "Australian Reforming Catholics" website (with emphasis on the "reforming"):
"If the words "Creator, Liberator and Sustainer" enable some people to come closer to the meaning of the Trinity, then why should there be such a problem if people have a choice about the way it is expressed? Our understanding is that not all people are baptised at the South Brisbane Church with these words and if some are assisted in faith through their usage, then there should be concentration on what is most important."
The proper way to approach the meaning of the Trinity is catachesis. The proper way to approach the reality of the Trinity, and of eternal life, is to call upon the Trinity by their revealed names in the sacrament of baptism. This is what is most important: that faith be founded on reality as well as feeling.
After all, feelings don't save - but God does.
Looks like CDF agrees.
