Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane admits baptism blunder

The Courier-Mail ^ | March 06, 2008 | Neil Hickey

[Alex Murphy]

DOZENS - even hundreds - of Catholics in Brisbane may have been illicitly baptised in a bungle the church is now trying to correct.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane says the blunder may affect anyone baptised at the St Marys Catholic Church before 2004.

The notice has been issued after a fresh directive this week from the Catholic Church in Vatican City.

The baptisms used two illicit formulas: "I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier and "I baptise you in the in the name of the Creator and of the Liberator and of the Sustainer.

The legitimate formula is "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.''

The chancellor of the diocese, Father Jim Spence, said the priests at the parish were ordered to revert to the traditional formula in 2004 but that some people may still be unaware their baptisms were wrongly administered.

He said he was unaware how many people it may affect. The church is currently considering whether there will be a need for those illicitly baptised to have the ritual legitimately.

"It doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means it's illicit, he said.

"It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it means that it shouldn't have happened.

"I guess (those affected) would have all sorts of reactions. I would hope that anybody whos troubled by it would get in touch.''

Baptism, the first of seven sacraments in the church, is the rite of initiation into the church and is usually administered shortly after birth.

Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage.

[Dionysius]

Come on, all you anti-Catholics out there — time to crawl out of the woodwork to make your disparaging remarks! I can’t believe you’d let an opportunity like this slip away.

[sitetest]

“DOZENS - even hundreds - of Catholics in Brisbane may have been illicitly baptised in a bungle the church is now trying to correct.”

The writer has it wrong. These baptisms aren’t illicit, they’re invalid.

I wonder what else the write got wrong.

[sitetest]

“Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage.”

I think Fr. Spence may need some remedial work back in the seminary.

[Gumdrop]

I think there was another article about a California Church which had performed baptisms this way - yesterday - on the forum. It was an outcome of radical feminism and stupid liberals who decided on their own to rewrite the baptismal liturgy and eliminate any male references. You know what I mean - the “Father and the Son” seem to be offensive to them. Why they also changed the Holy Spirit is unknown to me - perhaps to justify their idiocy with changing “the Father and the Son”.

These people are so far removed from Christian tradition, they really ought to call themselves something else. The arrogance of rewording the baptismal service away from the words that Jesus gave us after he rose from the dead is appalling.

[Campion]

"It doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means it's illicit, he said.

Sorry, Padre, Rome said very clearly they were invalid.

Anyone who could read knew they were illicit; the approved liturgical books said "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in nice pretty black type on white paper.

[Mad Dawg]

The “spirit” of Vatican II rides again.

What a bunch of dopes!

[Ottofire]

>”The baptisms used two illicit formulas: “I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier and “I baptise you in the in the name of the Creator and of the Liberator and of the Sustainer.

>”The legitimate formula is “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’’”

Is it illicit or invaild because the run of the mill Catholic is confused, and might think that they were baptized in the name of Mary?

Just asking...

[Atheist2Theist]

I hope that Fr. Spence was misquoted, because if not this is serious misinformation. The doctrinal note from the CDF specifically said “ 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’”.

So it is not a case of illicit baptisms, but invalid baptisms. This also does effect some sacraments. For those who were married after an invalid baptism it does not change the fact that they were married, it means they will not be sacramentally married until they are baptized. It also does not effect confessions in any real sense other than that they must be baptized before they can go to confession again now that they are aware of the problem. It does though invalidate anybody who was confirmed or ordained who was invalidly baptized. These two sacraments can only be conferred on a baptized person.

[Just mythoughts]

Come on, all you anti-Catholics out there — time to crawl out of the woodwork to make your disparaging remarks! I can’t believe you’d let an opportunity like this slip away.

How about just doing baptism like John baptized Christ then NOBODY has anything to say about anything. NOT an anti-Catholic thought but a Scriptural response.

[Ottofire]

>Come on, all you anti-Catholics out there — time to crawl out of the woodwork to make your disparaging remarks! I can’t believe you’d let an opportunity like this slip away.

Hold on now! Am I an Anti-Catholic, or an Anti-Mormon, or an Anti-JW, or an Anti-Buddhist, or an Anti-Muslim, or an Anti-Liberal, or an Anti-Jihadist, or an Anti-Gnostic, or an Anti-Abortionist, or an Anti-Dispensationalist, or an Anti-Tax and Spender, or an Anti-Post-Modernist, or an Anti-Atheist, or an Anti-Guncontroller, or an Anti-premaritalsexist, or an Anti-Freewill Baptist, or an Anti-Progressive Taxist, or an Anti-Afirmative Actionist, or an Anti-Code Pinker, or an Anti-whatever? Please, will someone who is bleating their victimhood please stick to one, or at least make a list for me?

Using that term is like saying that you are an Anti-Scripturalist, an Anti-Baptist, an Anti-Presbyterian, an Anti-Lutheran... It means NOTHING. It means I have a bias for something, and everyone has one, even you, Dionysius.

The term is meant to poison the well, to show your victim-hood to the world. Oh poor Catholics, they are disparaged throughout the world. If you cannot take criticism, if your faith cannot take questions, and you cannot defend it, your faith is weak, without justification. If you cannot take critiscism, stick to the Caucus threads, and keep your head down.

[conservonator]

Using that term is like saying that you are an Anti-Scripturalist, an Anti-Baptist, an Anti-Presbyterian, an Anti-Lutheran... It means NOTHING. It means I have a bias for something...

You know, you're right...How about instead of "anti-Catholic" the term:
"those who vocally and vehemently oppose any of the ancient catholic churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of their own ignorance, possession, oppression or killing pride".

[conservonator]

is substituted?

[magisterium]

Acts 19:1-5 indicates clearly that John’s form of baptism is insufficient for believers in the New Covenant. When the disciples from Ephesus who are discussed in the passage were asked under what form they were already baptized, they said “Into John’s baptism.” The next verse says that they were rebaptized.

John’s baptism was a baptism giving a mere sign of repentance. It wasn’t even in Jesus’ name, much less the Trinity’s. It merely prefigured the sacramental baptism that Christ mandated.

[Just mythoughts]

Acts 19:1-5 indicates clearly that John’s form of baptism is insufficient for believers in the New Covenant. When the disciples from Ephesus who are discussed in the passage were asked under what form they were already baptized, they said “Into John’s baptism.” The next verse says that they were rebaptized. John’s baptism was a baptism giving a mere sign of repentance. It wasn’t even in Jesus’ name, much less the Trinity’s. It merely prefigured the sacramental baptism that Christ mandated.

Keyword in your scripture notation is repentance, of which Christ needed NONE. Thus what is differentiated in your Scripture quotation than was with Christ was repentance NOT how the baptism of Christ took place.

[magisterium]

We had a similar problem here in Boston a few years back. The Paulist Center, the guilty party in the matter, was ordered by the archbishop to actively seek out those people affected and their families, inform them of the problem, and offer to baptize them properly this time. Unfortunately, not all people involved could be reached, and not all of the remainder, when this was all explained to them, were of a proper frame of mind any more to be bothered. What an absolute disgrace when, in the names of “Relevance” and “Trendiness,” one of the more transparently understandable and clear-cut passages in Scripture, Matthew 28:19, is dismissed out-of-hand as unimportant!

[lastchance]

No it is invalid because Baptism is to be done as Christ commanded the Apostles “in the Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit” The Blessed Mother does not enter into the equation at all. We are baptized into the Persons of The Trinity not into their functions are economies.

[magisterium]

There is an absolute differentiation, my friend, insofar as, despite their affirmation that they were baptized into John's baptism, St. Paul detremined that they nevertheless were to be forthwith baptized again into the sacramental baptism of which John's was only a prefigurement. Were this not so, they would not have to be baptized a second time. Yet we see that they not only were rebaptized, they were rebaptized immediately.

Also, are you trying to say that John's baptism was in the Names of the Trinity, or even just the Name of Jesus? He had been doing his baptisms for quite a while before Jesus even appeared before him, and there is not the slightest Scriptural indication that His Name was invoked in any of these many baptisms. Without question, the Trinitarian formula was not used, as Jesus had not formally revealed the Trinity's existence at this point. Yet Jesus is clear, in Matthew 28:19, regarding under what Names His new baptism was to be done. It is silly to even imply that John did that form of baptism. The only similarities were that both used water and both were authorized by God. But John's was clearly a mere foreshadowing of Christ's.

[magisterium]

"Poison the well"? Are you serious??? You are the one who brought up the ridiculous charge that somehow Mary is operational in Catholic baptisms. You know this is false, just by virtue of being an active participant here when these sorts of things have been discussed many times before. Yet you accuse us of poisoning the well here???

Oy!

[livius]

Fr. Spence is having a little trouble admitting what he and his cronies did. Baptizing with anything but the orthodox Trinitarian baptismal formula is just plain invalid. These people were not baptized, which was what Rome said; I think Fr. Spence is still resisting, alas.