www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Holy See Rejects Feminist "Baptism"

John,

"But does Rome see fit to allow it or is it tolerating what it cannot control?"

That is a good question. It seems to me when Rome feels theological truth is at stake it puts it's foot down. Take the topic at hand. A few years ago it found out an Australian priest had used the cited invalid formula. Rome suspended the priest and required all the children rebaptized, and made it clear any future disobedience would be swiftly punished with suspension/excommunication, case closed.

I do believe there is a hierarchy of truth, and to me substitutions like brothers and sisters for brethren or humankind for mankind, etc while not optimal do not place theology in danger which is why Rome allows/tolerates it even if it does not like it I conclude.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I understand that somewhere in Minnesota there is a parish/diocese with 8-10 years of baptisms with the same formula...sad news

james

"From experience, clergy typically fear feminists and will champion their *needs* to appease them and keep them at bay. . . . This is why the readers of these forums only know that what was done was to satisfy someone's *needs*, but that someone remains anonymous."

I partially agree with you, as I don't like "gender inclusive" language. It is even worse when those who insert it are not wordsmith, their muddling with the English language is often awkward and forced. Where I would disagree with you is with your argument. I don't like how you are arguing this point.

Terry

This is not true. If you look at the Liturgical books published by the Episcopalians (for example), you will find the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is still the standard form for baptism. I have looked at Methodist books and noticed the same thing. In fact, my Lutheran book of services also has the traditional formula.

The fact that some radical clergy have altered the formula does not mean that the churches in toto have adopted this formula. Usually, the baptismal certificate will indicate the words that were used.

Here in the Midwest, I have never met anyone who was not baptized in the trinitarian formula.

PrJ:

With all due respect, I get into all these churches on a regular basis as part of my work. And when I have a minute or two I have looked at the official forumulae in each of these books and they do, as you say, contain traditional language. I have also sat through services in these same churches and, while reading along in the service book, have heard these non-traditional formulae used when the words of Baptism or blessing came up. Maybe Pennsylvania is a hotbed of this, but I'd always been told it was rather conservative. And it istn't just youg clergy or what one might call "radical" clergy that do these things. There are more than enough clergy who "wing it" with their own service books when it comes to Baptism or Communion or burial. In my experience, people don't tend to question their pastor when it comes to how a service is to be conducted. They feel that that is his area of expertise and he must know what he is doing or he wouldn't be licensed or ordained, depending on the particular polity of the community.

Then there are the communities that decide they will do whatever they want despite what their national church might dictate. There was an Episcopalian priest who used the Anglican Missal in definace of his bishop; the Lutheran congregation that refused to adopt the "green book" and used the early 1960s "red book" up to now; the United Methodist who are still trying to use the Evangelical United Brethren books from before 1968. Actually it's hard to find consistency in these communities and so when one does find these non-traditonal formulae it doesn't cause much of a stir--everything has come dwon to individual "taste."

In Christ,

BOB

I completely agree with you. It is wrong to alter the text but I think the person who objected to the word man instead of human needs to realize that man actually means human. I have no problem with it being that if we really wanted to be picky we should not use words such as human, woman, or even hysterical. I do not think it is opressive to use such language as man for mankind. I also think it is very hard to find a proper translation if anyone can recommend one I would greatly appreciate it. I think part of the problem is that people want to treat Religion like a democracy where they can argue and vote to get their way but it is not a democracy we do not pick and choose our God and replace him on a whim but that is what many think they can do. I think this is an example of the Democratic Idea of religion and the strive to make it into something more pleasing and accessable. "Let me mold it so I am more comfortable with it" This idea will lead many down the wide path and through the broad gate.

Bob,

If you are going to talk about a Christian community and accuse it of abandoning the traditional Baptismal formula then you must be able to show that its officially accepted books have made that choice. If they have not, then you should not accuse the denominations.

It is fair to say that your anecdotal experience has led you to believe that some/many clergy do not use the official formula. But it is unfair and untrue to say that this reflects official Church practice or policy.

My anecdotal experience contradicts your anecdotal experience -- which should lead us to stop arguing on the basis of personal experience and use official sources and statistical data to buttress our arguments.

James interesting that you mention that parish:
Minneapolis Parish�s �Progressive� Liturgies Being Brought into Line
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=86656

A lot of parishes in Los Angeles are also flaunting the rules of the Vatican.

Father Deacon,

Thank you for your posts. As I was reading the link you offered about the parish in Minneapolis (in your post just above) I thought of your post from last night, about tolerating suboptimal (doctrinally imprecise) translations. Doctrinally imprecise texts lead to an ill-formed community. I can only guess, but I think I would not be far off the mark in saying that, if 40 years ago, this parish was stopped from using incorrect texts they would not have the problem they have now.

I was also thinking of the push back in the late 1990s by the United Church of Canada in which they attempted to update the baptismal formula to remove the masculine references so as to be more "inclusive" to women. They eventually did not revise their liturgical books because the Catholic Church (and I think a few other churches) strongly stated that such baptisms would not be valid and they would not recognize them. So here we have an example of a Vatican demand regarding the need for doctrinal precision actually assisting a Protestant Church to keep from loosing more authentic doctrine. The whole gender neutral language push is a bit like letting that well intentioned camel put his head in the tent. Soon you're stuck with the whole camel. Certainly nothing to walk a mile for.

John

PrJ:

I didn't accuse a whole denomination of altering traditional formulae. What I said was that there seems to be a great deal of "winging it" by some clergy members of certain mainline groups. I also said that, from all appearances, there does not seem to be any penalty for doing so or too much opposition for the people sitting in the pew over it.

BOB

Whether this is true or not, the point is that it makes all baptisms from these denominations "suspect".
And therefore when one is received from one of these denominations, the person has to be conditionally baptized.
Stephanos I
If done in this formula it renders the baptism null and void.

Fr. Stephanos,

But then one could say Latin Catholic baptisms are just as suspect because Latin priests have also used the invalid formula. I think validity has to be presumed unless it is confirmed an invalid formual was used. I would think a parent would remember if one was.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I would rather suspect the seminaries who trained the priests in question than the whole lot of them. I would also rather suspect the greater secular academic culture when it perceives sexism in the traditional formula. We can suspect backwards from the invalid baptisms and investigate causes and causes causes. Perhaps our investigation will end at the beginning and the fall, with the Adversary.

Terry

from Fr Stephanos

From Fr Deacon Lance

how true is Fr Deacon Lance's comment

Does anyone else remember this ?

Australian Baptism problem [cathnews.com]