In a bold move today, the Vatican effectively denounced the whole of Feminist Theology within the Catholic Church:
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," is not a valid Christian sacrament.
The invalid formula, the Vatican statement points out, arises from feminist ideology, and an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic.
If either formula -- recently initiated in North America to avoid referring to the Trinity with masculine names -- was used, the person is not yet formally a Christian and any subsequent sacraments the person received also are invalid" said Cardinal Urbano Navarrete in a commentary commissioned by the doctrinal congregation. (VIS News release)
Well... there you have it! The "inclusive language" phenomenon has now resulted in the invalid baptism of countless persons. Mind you... these are not merely "non-licit"... they are INVALID, meaning that the persons baptized using this formula or any similar inclusive language or irregular formula must be baptized again, regardless of how long ago or whether they were aware of the invalidity or not.
This is a big deal... these persons, and the numbers could be bewildering, would also have received a)INVALID Eucharist b)INVALID Confirmation c)INVALID Matrimony as all of these Sacraments depend on valid Baptism to be valid Sacraments. The CDF was very specific in the remedy:
"Persons who were baptized or will be baptized in the future with the formulas in question in reality are not baptized," the cardinal wrote. If they are now adults and want to be baptized, they must receive the instruction prescribed for all preparing for baptism and they should receive baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist during the same Mass," he said.
In other words, they must go through the RCIA or RCIC process, depending on age, and recieve all initiation Sacraments together. And all because some people felt that it was demeaning to refer to God as "Father". I guess Jesus was misinformed when he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Let's hear it for Feminism!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"they must go through the RCIA or RCIC process, depending on age, and recieve all initiation Sacraments together"
One problem with this is that RCIA programs are hotbeds of disaffected lay women, ("demi-clerics' as I read it put somewhere,) who subtly, (with pursed-lipped explanations that "the Catholic Church does not ordain woman... at present,") or openly, push the agenda, contrary to that of the Church, that led to this mess in the first place.
I admit, if I found myself in this position, and had been, as far as I knew, a practicing Catholic, I woudn't go near RCIA.
I would have my husband or the next Christian I came in contact with baptize me immediately, and then present myself to the nearest priest for "private instruction," and expect to be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ by the weekend Liturgy and have my Marriage convalidated (is that the right word?) immediately after Mass.
And I would venue shop if my pastor wouldn't go along.
I am not certain I would present myself for confirmation at our local Cathedral.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
It certainly wouldn't be my first choice to put them in a regular parish RCIA program... I think the point that was being made was that they must recieve all sacraments of initiation together, in the "restored order" as they say, rather than simply re-doing the Baptism. Whether they would have to be in a formal RCIA program would, I guess, be left to the Pastor odf the Church in question.
well, not an invalid Eucharist, as the validity of the Eucharist doesn't depend on the state of the communicant. However, the grace of the Sacrament is in no way a certain thing, as it is promised only to those within the Church, which those who have been invalidly baptized are not.
Steve... I see your point concerning Eucharist, as it is not a Sacrament conferred upon an individual as is Confirmation, Holy Orders etc... however;
"...the person is not yet formally a Christian and any subsequent sacraments the person received also are invalid" said Cardinal Urbano Navarrete....
That was the CDF's position and their public statement.
Well, the Cardinal's language is a bit sloppy, I think, in using the word "invalid" there. Some Sacraments change us (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders) by imprinting a character on the soul. So, confirmation and Holy Orders cannot be validly received by an unbaptised person, because the "foundational" character isn't there.
But the other sacraments, while equally graceful, do not imprint a character (and hence can be received multiple times).
A follow-up question I'd have about Baptism is if those baptisms performed where a baby is dipped in a pool, but where water never touches the head (you'll remember this from St. Colman's) are valid. Priests I've asked around here are doubtful (but of course they continue still).
What I should have finished saying about the other sacraments is that the language should be "ineffectual" rather than invalid.
Yes... I'm also wondering now whether this is a translation from Italian... whether the terminology is correct or not, I think the point he is making is quite clear... Baptisms using an improper formula are not actual Baptisms and such persons must be Baptized and have any other Sacraments recieved "re-done".
As for the "immersion" Baptisms... these too would seem to be "irregular"... there was an interesting discussion elsewhere about Baptisms using things other than water, and forms other than the prescribed pouring water over the head of the person. There seems to be a feeling that, while these are not good form, they are not "wrong" in quite the same way as the use of a non-Trinitarian formula is.
Post a Comment