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?