Posted on 03/06/2008 8:22:10 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
You’re doing just fine on your own thanks.
>”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!
Oh, I thought that the Sustainer, Sanctifier and Redeemer were functions added to the long list of the jobs of Mary. It is a long list, continuously added to from the first angelic “Blessed among women”. Sometimes the unchanging Tradition is revealed so fast it is hard to keep up with...
Thank you! Therefore, it was different. Words mean things.
You’re far too transparent for your own good.
>>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”.
Or perhaps the term “those who vocally and vehemently oppose any REFORM of apostasy, particularly the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of their own ignorance, possession, oppression or killing pride”.
But that would just be getting you all riled up for no reason.
I would want my money back !!
What a silly thing to say, do you think protestant is an empty word?
Why are you going around trying to pick a fight?
You poor victim.
Since these ridiculous "alternative" baptismal formulas originated with liberal Protestants, perhaps it's because persons so baptized might think they can make up theological truth as they go, according to which cherry-picked passage of their poorly-translated Bible "speaks to them" or "feeds them" today.
One True Church{tm} Alert!
Nahh, that's not really a good substitute of the term "anti-catholic" which was what my post was about.
But that would just be getting you all riled up for no reason.
LOL, you don't have that kind of power!
Wow, it seems you really have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Catholicism! If someone is interested in whether the Catholic Church puts Mary on a par with Jesus, a good place to start would be to attend mass. There one would find that in the prayers of the mass the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are addressed or mentioned probably several hundred times more often than is Mary. In fact, in the present version of the mass, Mary is only mentioned once or twice: (1) in the Creed it says that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary”, and (2) in the prayer called the “confiteor” she is named in a list of those we ask to pray for us that includes all those present at the mass. In the old pre-Vatican II version of the mass, Mary was probably mentioned a few more times, but only a few. The overwhelmingly dominant focus of attention of the mass is God. This is true also of the other rites and ceremonies of the Church. It is absurd to think that Catholics would think anyone baptized in the name of Mary.
Yes, the Church honors Mary. And this is reflected in popular devotions such as the Rosary, in religious art, in a number of feast days in her honor, and so on.
However, Mary figures far more in debates between Protestants and Catholics than she figures in the actual worship and prayer life of the Church. Because in these debates so much is said about Mary, it is easy to get the impression that Catholics spend all their time thinking about Mary. It is probably not much of an exaggeration to say that I hear a more about Mary from Protestants complaining about her than I hear from Catholics in their ordinary religious devotions.
Protestants are so unused to honoring Mary or hearing about Mary in their own religious devotions and practices that any mention of her seems to rivet their attention as something very jarring and shocking. But to Catholics, hearing the name of Mary is no more shocking than hearing the names of St. Peter or St. Paul, or John the Baptist, or Moses, or Abraham, or the angels. All these figures are unique and important parts of the story of how we were saved. A Catholic no more thinks of worshipping Mary as God than he thinks of worshipping Peter, Paul, or John the Baptist as God. We have feast days for Mary, but we have feasts for Peter, Paul, and many others. We also address prayers to them on occasion -— asking for THEIR prayers.
There are some people who make it their business in life to take offense. Some “civil rights spokesmen” smell secret racism everywhere. Even the most inoffensive remark is analyzed for traces of it. The same with some Jewish organizations, who see anti-Semitism around every corner. The hypersensitivity of some Protestants, which leads them to see mariolatry, statue worship, etc. lurking everywhere, strikes me as the same kind of maniacal fixation.
Is there not room in the human heart for more than one kind of love? I love my five children. I’d run out in front of a truck to save any one of them. I think about them a lot. I ask THEM to pray for me. I have pictures of them in my office. Does that mean I worship them? I love my wife.
I love my country. Does loving God AS GOD, mean we cannot love any creature AT ALL? God is a jealous God in that he will not tolerate any WORSHIP of any lesser being. But does he will that no love AT ALL be directed toward anyone but Himself? Quite the contrary. He says that in loving our neighbor we also love Him. The more we love God, the MORE we will love our fellow man, and that would include most especially God’s holy ones.
Present.
I would suggest that if the priest can’t even do a proper Baptism, he probably was leading the flock astray on other issues as well.
At least the priest can come to America and get a job with the liberal PCUSA if he has the need:
“Presbyterians (PCUSA) Adopt New Trinity Wording (Vote 282-212 Mother/Child/Womb)” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1658587/posts
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I find this very disturbing. What is the origin of these phrases, and how did they come about in this diocese? This is the sort of distortion the enemy would seek to create, to nullify the value of the sacrament by using an ambiguous reference to the Trinity. Bizarre substitutionary phrases similar to these are sometimes used as a hidden reference to Lucifer by satanic cults and in cases of diabolical oppression and demonic possession.
Well, there's always that little verse in Matthew, isn't there:
For the Catholics, DRB:
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. "
For the Evangelicals, KJV:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
And for the Reformed, Geneva:
Go therefore, & teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost
Matthew 28:19.
The agenda is to get rid of "patriarchal" words like "Father" and "Son". Of course, that's how God chose to reveal himself to us, but we know better. /s
Thanks for the info; I think that this tradition indeed started with Satan and his minions who surely played a direct and aggressive role in both radical feminsim and the liberalization of the church.
I have a strong suspicion if Father took it upon himself to create his own baptismal formula---the other sacraments marriage, confirmation, penance (assuming the parish has it available) and even Mass were also invalid.
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.