[Apologetics] Church rebuked for 'new' baptism

[Stephen Korsman]

Hi

Considering the debate at times about the validity of changes less
significant than these, I would think that they'd be invalid and need to be
done properly.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI tells us a bit more about the
requirements.

It says:
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This
person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost."

Further on it says:
At one time some Western theologians disputed the Greek form, because they
doubted the validity of the imperative or deprecatory formula: "Let this
person be baptized" (baptizetur). As a matter of fact, however, the Greeks
use the indicative, or enuntiative, formula: "This person is baptized"
(baptizetai, baptizetur). This is unquestionable from their Euchologies, and
from the testimony of Arcudius (apud Cat., tit. ii, cap. i), of Goar (Rit.
Græc. Illust.), of Martene (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I) and of the theological
compendium of the schismatical Russians (St. Petersburg, 1799). It is true
that in the decree for the Armenians, Pope Eugene IV uses baptizetur,
according to the ordinary version of this decree, but Labbe, in his edition
of the Council of Florence seems to consider it a corrupt reading, for in
the margin he prints baptizatur. It has been suggested by Goar that the
resemblance between baptizetai and baptizetur is responsible for the
mistake. The correct translation is, of course, baptizatur.

And then:
It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that
are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is
required and the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity",
would be of more than doubtful validity.