[Apologetics] Church rebuked for 'new' baptism

[Art Kelly]

Thanks, Stephen. This is very interesting. 

I think the key phrase in what you sent me is, "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."

Of course, I'm not defending the change in wording
that were used in Australia or Boston or anywhere
else, but it may be that the Baptisms were still
valid.

Art

--- Stephen Korsman <skorsman at theotokos.co.za> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> >From the Council of Florence, 1439:
> The form is: "I baptize you in the name of the
> Father and of the Son and of
> the holy Spirit." But we do not deny that true
> baptism is conferred by the
> following words: "May this servant of Christ be
> baptized in the name of the
> Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit;" or,
> "This person is baptized
> by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son
> and of the holy
> Spirit."
> --
>
http://www.evergreen.loyola.edu/~fbauerschmidt/Th249/armenians_intro.html
> 
> I think that the words used in this case go further
> than acceptable
> variation.
> 
> God bless,
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> skorsman at theotokos.co.za
> www.theotokos.co.za
> 
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Art Kelly" <arthurkelly at yahoo.com>
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Stephen. I read about this in Catholic
> World
> > News.
> >
> > This isn't the first time some priest tried to
> change
> > the wording of Baptism. A few years ago, children
> had
> > to be baptized again at a parish in the U.S.
> somewhere
> > (it might have been in Boston) after it was
> discovered
> > that a priest had been baptizing "In the name of
> the
> > Creator, Redeemer, and Santifier."
> >
> > Since Jesus designated what to say during
> Baptisms, I
> > don't think there is room for variations.
> >
> > I'm not sure if the Baptisms using different
> wording
> > were still valid or not, since the priest clearly
> had
> > the intent to adminster the sacrament. To be on
> the
> > safe side, I think I'd recommend that the children
> be
> > re-Baptized conditionally.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > --- Stephen Korsman <skorsman at theotokos.co.za>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Church rebuked for 'new' baptism
> > > Elizabeth Allen
> > > November 23, 2004
> > >
> > > DOUBT has been cast on the validity of hundreds
> of
> > > baptisms at a Brisbane Catholic church.
> > >
> > > The baptisms were performed at St Mary's Church
> at
> > > South Brisbane during the past few years.
> > >
> > > Archbishop of Brisbane John Bathersby has
> accused
> > > the church of baptising "invalidly" by not using
> the
> > > traditional liturgy.
> > >
> > > Instead of baptising in the name of the "Father,
> Son
> > > and Holy Spirit", Fr Peter Kennedy and his
> assistant
> > > Fr Terry Fitzpatrick used the words "Creator,
> > > Liberator and Sustainer".
> > >
> > > Full article:
> > >
> >
>
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11469388%5E3102,00.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Korsman
> > > skorsman at theotokos.co.za
> > > www.theotokos.co.za
> > >
> > > IC | XC
> > > ---------
> > > NI | KA
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > ART KELLY, ATM-S
> > 13524 Brightfield Lane
> > Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360
> > (703) 904-3763 home
> > (703) 396-6960 work
> > arthurkelly at yahoo.com
> > art.kelly at cox.net
> > akelly at americantarget.com
> > ArtK135 at Netscape.net
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Apologetics mailing list
> > Apologetics at gathman.org
> > http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Apologetics mailing list
> Apologetics at gathman.org
> http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
> 
> <!DSPAM:100769D927E8457913657064>
> 
> 


=====
ART KELLY, ATM-S
13524 Brightfield Lane 
Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360 
(703) 904-3763 home 
(703) 396-6960 work
arthurkelly at yahoo.com
art.kelly at cox.net
akelly at americantarget.com
ArtK135 at Netscape.net