Is your church Catholic?
Baptism and eternal salvation.
When I was little, probably in first grade, I was so impressed by the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation, that I used to carry a jar of water with me whenever my family went for a drive. I knew that any baptized Catholic could baptize a person in danger of death if a priest was not available. I found an old briefcase to carry the jar of water in, and I included a prayerbook with prayers for the dying as well. I carried it everywhere, just in case we came across an accident or someone in danger of death. Yes, I was roundly mocked.
As a small child, I had a vivid imagination concerning hell, limbo, purgatory, and eternal salvation. I knew my parents were living outside the state of grace - primarily because my mom was a divorced remarried Catholic, neither parent ever attended church, and my mother sometimes told me she wasn’t in the state of grace. Thus I prayed constantly for them - so great was my fear of eternal damnation - I hated the thought of anyone going to hell. Of course the concept of hell frightened me, but what scared me much more, was the idea that hell was eternal - so I prayed ardently that no one would have to go there. (In the end my parents died ‘happy deaths’.)
I mention all of this as background for my outrage at the fact some ministers of the Catholic Church have not taken this doctrine as seriously as it should have been taken. The revelation that the feminist, gender-neutral formula of baptism is not only illicit, but also invalid, is rather distressing to anyone who takes their faith seriously. I’ve posted about this before, it isn’t an issue of language or politics, it is an issue dealing with eternal salvation. Something feminist Gnostics obviously do not take seriously.
Will diocesean officials begin to do something about it?
Pewsitter News has a piece on how the Brisbane Archdiocese is now having to deal with the issue. At one church hundreds of baptisms before 2004 were performed using the illicit/invalid formula. However, the chancellor for the Archdiocese is claiming that such baptisms are only illicit and not invalid. Obviously he must be misinformed or making it up, because the original Vatican announcement clearly stated that all such baptisms were not only illicit, but invalid, and those baptised using the Gnostic formula would have to be re-baptized.
Does anyone else see this as a big deal? Does anyone else think this is bigger than the sexual abuse scandal? Isn’t the Catholic Church supposed to be about the salvation of souls? Yet the Brisbane Archdiocesan chancellor, Fr. Jim Spence gave reporters this assuring news:
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. - Couriermail.com.au
BS! Sounds like a cover to me. I’d go ahead and have the baptism done over. And yes - an illicit/invalid baptism does indeed invalidate subsequent sacraments. Now, can’t you see how this could affect a soul’s eternal salvation?
March 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
You’re right, Terry. It isn’t just a culture rite of passage, or some cute tradition like a girl’s sweet 16 birthday party. This concerns eternal salvation and WHO on EARTH do these priests think they are deliberately FLOUTING a law so plain / basic / universal?!?!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I agree that it was a terrible thing for priests to make up their own words for Baptism; and I would hate to be the ones who did it when they meet their Maker. Because as you say, it does concern the salvation of souls. However, the sin was theirs rather than the families and children who were victims of this fiasco. There is such a thing as the Baptism of desire. The parents assumed that those conferring Baptism on their children knew how to do it. It was their intention to have their children validly baptized. When the children received the other sacraments, the families had to come up with a certificate of Baptism, signed and sealed. Surely those children have received Baptism of desire, both from their parents’ desire that they be baptized, and their own desire to follow Christ. If it had happened to me or my kids, I would push for conditional re-baptism. But I think God has them covered. (Makes me think of the movie, “The Left Hand of God”.)
March 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
And yes - an illicit/invalid baptism does indeed invalidate subsequent sacraments.
Not quite. An invalid baptism invalidates subsequent sacraments, but an illicit baptism does not invalidate subsequent sacraments. “Invalid” means there wasn’t any real baptism at all, “illicit” means there was a real baptism, but it was done in a way that violates church law and custom. For example, all Trinitarian baptisms performed by Protestants are illicit, but they are valid. Father Spence either doesn’t know the difference between invalid and illicit (in which case he has no business being a priest, let alone a diocesan chancellor) or else he’s deliberately trying to confuse the issue to make it seem like the disaster in Brisbane isn’t that big a deal. On the contrary, it’s a major deal — that’s why the Vatican has called for any priest or deacon who took it on himself to rewrite the baptismal rite to be punished. This is a defrockable offense.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Jordan - you are right again - I phrased that wrong - illicit does not mean invalid. Thanks!
Melody - I have thought of that possibility as well, and I feel somewhat consoled by the thought - it would be great if the mistake could be considered baptism of desire. (After all - who knows, I’m sure the priest using the gender-neutral formula “intended” to baptise… but that doesn’t seem to have made a difference for the Vatican. )
Whatever, it would be up to the Holy See to determine that. As of this writing, the Holy See has said all such baptisms are invalid and must be done over. (If the priest changes the words of consecration, does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Chrst because we desire it to be? I think not.)
I believe we are so used to making up our own rules for liturgy and living the Catholic faith that it is nearly impossible for many of us to accept it when the Church rules definitively on something such as the invalidity of gender neutral baptisms. It is similar to many peoples reaction to the teaching, “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” That one always gets people coming up with exceptions and excuses, and’s, but’s, and if’s…
March 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Terry, I was thinking that the baptism of desire would refer to the desire of the person baptized (their parents and godparents in the case of an infant) rather than the desire of the priest(who used an invalid form). Isn’t that pretty much what they tell people who had a stillborn baby, or one who died shortly after birth before Baptism?
As to the example of a priest using the wrong words for consecration (that happened in my brother’s parish with a priest who was getting Alzheimer’s) it seems to me that people would be making a spiritual Communion rather than a sacramental one.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Melody, Yes, I knew what you were saying - I thought it important to clarify because some friends have suggested the intent of the priest being the same as the baptism of desire.
As for the baptism of desire on the part of parents for infants who die - it may be the case. The Church does not say for certain. We hope and pray.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
It seems to me that if it was me whose Baptism was in doubt, I’d jump at the opportunity to be Baptized.
Think about it. What if I staked my life, actually, my death on the Baptism of Desire and then it turns out that it doesn’t work that way?
Jesus gave us the exact words he wanted us to use. Matt 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
That sounds pretty specific to me. And there are a bunch of my failings and inadequacies that already have me worried. I don’t kneed an invalid Baptism, too.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Terry:
The thought of you carrying around a bottle of water is priceless. I was baptized by a very orthodox priest and so was my husband–but hearing about invalid baptisms makes me want to get baptized again–just to make sure!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Baptism of desire would not apply if a person came to understand that he or his children had been invalidly baptised and had good opportunity to rectify the matter, but chose not to do so. Of course God alone judges who has proper understand and good opportunity and who doesn’t, but in this case the general rule would be that those incorrectly baptised are going to learn sooner or later that they are not yet fully and sacramentally Christians, and then they will be obliged to seek baptism.