The Donatists in the time of Augustine created a stir by stating that sacraments performed by priests who had renounced the faith in time of persecution were not valid. As such, the "un-baptized" person, if they had received the sacraments of confirmation, marriage, or ordination, had not really received those sacraments either. They only thought they had.
A statement released yesterday from Vatican Information Services states that anyone baptized using the formula " I baptized you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," or "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer," has not only not been baptized, but in Donatist-style, has not received those other sacraments either.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stated that the other formulae are not properly Trinitarian and do not "obey Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew." These arguments are quite weak. First, within Scripture we find innumerable names given to the persons of the Trinity. Does that mean those names are inadequate not only for baptism, but for using at anytime? In addition, God's infinite nature makes any naming of the Trinity grossly inadequate. Second, no serious scripture scholar really believes that Jesus literally commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' followers discerned this after the resurrection, just as some of the today's priests and religious groups has discerned a different Trinitarian formula in which to baptize.
The US Bishops' Secretariat of Doctrine, Fr. Tom Weinandy, stated that unless there is a witness who is sure that the non-standard formula was used, "it is assumed they used the right formula." Sounds like the US Bishops are trying to make some wiggle room of their own because of the possible blowback from the CDF telling people their baptisms and marriages are invalid.
A Faithful Catholic
37 comments:
Whatever.
You could save yourself a lot of trouble by simply re-labeling yourself as 'Dissenter'.
That way at least your "non serviam" mewlings would be consistent.
Your post was obviously on target. I notice "dad29" does not show his blog profile. I suspect why. Jack
And thus the gospel can be reinterpreted to mean His words will not pass away ... all at once. Again, is everything subject to reinterpretation except the number after the dollar sign on a pledge card?
"I notice "dad29" does not show his blog profile. I suspect why."
I can't even suspect why one pseudonymous commenter at a pseudonymous blog would raise a question about another pseudonymous commenter's lack of a linked profile.
Terrence, you really are a class act. For years I ran my name and complete profile. However, for the last few weeks I have allowed a fine young man who is becomming a catholic to use my blog. I have tried to stay clear so he will have a good chance to get help sinceI have been critizized by "liberal catholic bloggers". Don't get me wrong, I'm 'liberal' myself and so is my wife. But just in case, I am John Margrave Haynes, 75, catholic, former teacher and public worker union organizer. Also taught philosophy for years. I sign my blogs Jack. However on current blog I give my Name: John M Haynes.You might try to be a little more careful. If you want more information about me read blogs by a young man named Frank on my blog. Will not give his full name--too many nuts out there. I sign Jack, but jack/joe is user name. If you need further information please let me know. Jack and Joe are my grandkids.
"...75, catholic, former teacher and public worker union organizer. Also taught philosophy for years."
It's like a virtual VOTF meeting!
"Will not give his full name--too many nuts out there."
Sounds like a reason to not "suspect" other people's motives.
You made the challenge big boy. I came through. What about "dad29". Have you ever helped a young man? I bet you loved the new biography of Clarence Thomas. And, of course, the Latin Mass. In your spare time, you might try some biblical scholarship. Jack
No, I am not member of Voice of the Faitful (I guess that was what you were refering to). However,your apparently blind devotion to the church leads you to defend Priest molesting children; or , at least, covering it up. Am I right? Jack
After all these decades, about all I remember of the Latin Mass is how crowded it was.
I don't think it likely one can become a biblical scholar in one's spare time, any more than one could become a logician. Though A.F.C.'s "no serious scripture scholar" looks a bit like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, doesn't it?
No, I didn't expect you to be a Biblical scholar--just read a few. Apparently you get your theology from Knights of Columbus pamphlets.Did your legal training(I assume you had some)tell you how to avoid answering a question. You failed to respond to my specific question of the priest sex abuse of children crisis. You probably explain the rape of a 5 year old girl as biased media. Jack
"...just read a few."
Doesn't A.F.C.'s post conflate the issues of the worthiness of the priest and the form of the sacrament? The distinction happens to have been among the topics covered with my Sunday School students in the class just past.
As for your questions, they're rhetorical.
Hmm...you seem to be getting confused. Your sunday school class, conflate? What? I think you won't answer because your whole religious (and probably political) stance is based on "media bias." Come on--fess up; stop hiding. Jack
A.F.C. also says "within Scripture we find innumerable names given to the persons of the Trinity. Does that mean those names are inadequate not only for baptism, but for using at anytime?" The CDF statement addresses only baptism, and A.F.C. points to nothing to indicate it has his claimed broader impact.
"I think you won't answer because your whole religious (and probably political) stance is based on 'media bias.'"
Aren't you about due to work talk radio into your critique?
I bet you love "right wing" talk radio. You still won't answer. Beautiful cat, but certainly it does not get your tongue. Jack
A.F.C.'s post also says "some of the today's priests and religious groups has discerned a different Trinitarian formula in which to baptize." After seeing processes in our Archdiocese of Milwaukee that claimed to be discernment, I'd say we might as well ask Dilbert's boss to improve on the prescribed rites.
Mr. Haynes, you might recall you implied there was something you "suspect" of Dad29. With the addition of me, is that enough suspects for a round-up?
Also, aren't "neo-con", "Fox News", and maybe "radtrad", about due?
I smell troll
Named JackJoe
Accusations, imprecations,
Useless prose-u-lations.
We get an old Union organizer who is evidently in need of something to do.
My profile is available on my blog, where it's been for several years.
You want to know more, JackJoe? Use Google. It works real well, even for old folks who "help" children.
Hey, "dad29" when I push on your "blue moniker" up comes "Profile Not Available." Are you hiding too. I think it's great you make fun of helping others. You would't know about that, I presume. But about what I thought from someone like you. All baloney. No substance.
Terrence, you have answered my question, I guess. Priest rapes 5 year old is just "media bias." Your answer, I assume.
dad29. I don't usually look on google for blogers. But did find yours. Didn't learn much. Already knew you were "old" and "nasty". A real inspiration for your kids, I would say. Jack
Speaking of abuse, in the linked article,
"The Vatican's statement was released 'because of the abuse (by priests and Protestant ministers at baptisms) and the questions that have come from it,' said Father Weinandy."
Mr. Haynes, regarding your question about "the priest sex abuse of children crisis", didn't those priests have their own version of "I go along with the church on most things except sex, which, in many cases is simply absurd."
Terrence, I got your answer earlier. You refuse to directly denounce child sex abuse. But your attitude is clear. Jack
So Jack, did you organize the Hodcarriers--with their customary brutal methods--or the commie-infested UAW at Allis-Chalmers, or the USW that put A O Smith out of business...which one, Jack?
Maybe the UE that Allen-Bradley is now eliminating, slow but sure?
I can borrow your mudslinging style and throw it back--unlike Terry, I'm not a genteel and restrained kinda guy, Jack.
Go ahead Mr. Crazy . You admit your "nasty." I organized only people with college degrees. So you see your full of it already .Boy, you're a great catholic. You think you're better than a working man? I'll admit you're fun to read. I assume you favor priest raping 5 year olds like your friend? Am I right? Jack
"Am I right?"
If you have an accusation against Dad29, and you've read his blog, where's your evidence?
Certainly you know the difference between an "accusation" and a "question." He describes himself as a 'Nasty old man', so I guess we are in agreement on something. I do not read his blog; I read this blog. Jack
"Certainly you know the difference between an 'accusation' and a 'question.'"
Certainly you know the difference between form and substance. You've made a slew of accusations, some in the form of questions, but none backed by any facts. If someone has a blog, it shouldn't be hard for you to point out something to back up your accusations. If there were anything to your accusations, that is.
Maybe JackJoe organized WEAC--the most pro-abortion lobby, save one, in the State.
That's something to be proud of, JackJoe.
All you need do is answer my question. I'm still not sure how a question is an accusation. Are you speaking for yourself or the 'nasty old man?' You seem confused. Jack
"I'm still not sure how a question is an accusation."
Like this:
"However,your apparently blind devotion to the church leads you to defend Priest molesting children; or , at least, covering it up. Am I right?"
"You probably explain the rape of a 5 year old girl as biased media."
"...your whole religious (and probably political) stance is based on 'media bias.' Come on--fess up; stop hiding."
"Priest rapes 5 year old is just 'media bias.' Your answer, I assume."
"I assume you favor priest raping 5 year olds like your friend?"
You're still confused. You cite some statements and questions. Are they not different? Don't you notice in almost all cases you cite as accusations I say "assume", "I think","probably"? I assume you have legal training (notice "assume). Is that an accusation?
But just three questions:
Is reporting the rape of a five year old by a priest just a case of 'media bias?'
Do you believe the church has done a great job in the sex abuse scandal?
When you 'comment' are you 'representing'yourself or 'nasty old man?' Jack
Try simple answers so you won't confuse yourself.
"You cite some statements and questions. Are they not different?"
In context, no. They continue, in substance, to be accusations.
I assume you have been in court cases. Any court would recognize these are different. Just using the word "context" is too vague to have value. Why will you not answer my questions? Very curious! Jack
Well, I've given up on getting "dirty old man'and Terrence to condemn child rape. So another question:Since both of you claim to be 'catholic'and since McCain begged the support of the Texas preacher who teaches the catholic church is a cult and the whore of Babylon do you recommend I support McCain? Could either of you try to answer and not hide? Jack
dad29, accept my apology for calling you 'dirty' old man. You prefer "nasty" old man. I hate to call you this(although you prefer it). Could I just call you "uncle fud",in the spirit of catholic charity? Jack
JackJoe, whatever you choose is fine with me--largely because it will be as irrelevant as you are.
dad29, kind of clever. Given a couple of days you can come up with something. Could you give me the names of some "commies" at Allic-Chalmers? What about McCain?
Make that Allis-Chalmers. Jack
Post a Comment