The Vatican has cracked down on feminist interpretations of the liturgy, ruling that God must always be recognised as Our Father.
In a move designed to counter the spread of gender-neutral phrases, the Holy See said that anyone baptised using alternative terms, such as “Creator”, “Redeemer” and “Sanctifier” would have to be re-baptised using the traditional ceremony.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said yesterday: “These variations arise from so-called feminist theology and are an attempt to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic.”
Update: The Zenit article on this is here.
I wonder what the Papa would say about a bishop who opines “our mother Jesus is giving birth to a new creation”?
Why is this surprising? Feminism is a philosophy based on the idnividual and her rights wheras Christinaity is based on the family and each members call to service and responsiblity.
Anyone who assumes the two are compatible is not thinking long and hard enough. I uphold equality but not feminism thus the Pope is merely speaking the faith as is. Nothing more and nothing less.
1. Steve, Papa would probably have trouble getting past the “bishop” part. 😉
If I recall correctly, this question arose out of an Australian RC parish which was strongly influenced by Fox’s Creation Spirituality. But that kind of thing is v. rare in the Catholic Church. What worries me is that if it is becomes widespread in the Church of England then it would lead to the cessation of the agreement between the major churches to recognise one another’s baptisms. Then we would be back to the days when Anglicans were angry at being regarded as doubtfully baptised. Which would be a v. sad development.
The big problem with using different terms for the persons of the Trinity is principally one of not understanding what the Trinity has been understood to be. Since the the writings of the Cappadocian fathers, the Trinity has only been able to be distinguished in terms of causality. The Father begat the Son, and the Spirit proceded from the Father (and the Son). So, the Father has no causes, the Son has one cause, and the Spirit has two causes. Otherwise the persons are one – one in attribute and one in operation. Saying, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” separates the three persons by operation, which the Bible does seem to do to some extent, but on the highest plane of theological debate, cannot be done. A feminist could say “Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit” without being heretical, since I don’t think even the Pope would say that the cause of the Son and Spirit is actually a male. On the other hand, Jesus calls the first person of the Trinity “Father,” so there is very good reason not to mess with that either.
Bravo! The shepherd guards his flock yet again!
In a move designed to counter the spread of gender-neutral phrases, the Holy See said that anyone baptised using alternative terms, such as “Creator”, “Redeemer” and “Sanctifier” would have to be re-baptised using the traditional ceremony.
Re-baptised? He’s got to be kidding.
First Apostle ( # 5) Surely it is completely and utterly wrong to apply causation within the Trinity? We are talking, after all, about timeless eternity, in which there are no events. It would also seem to imply that you believe in an economic Trinity as opposed to an essential Trinity. (If only some of the commentators from the old Al Kimel blog were around to weigh in on this with their very real erudition.)
7: Matter and form. Form and matter. Has something to do with sacramental theology, if memory serves.
er, maybe dogmatic theology?
No one is being “re-baptised”, of course, since they weren’t baptised in the first place. And I am so tired of journalists’ cliches: CRACKED DOWN! Don’t those people know any other way to say that the Catholic Church (cue sidebar report on clerical sex abuse) is clarifying and enforcing her consistent teaching of 2000 years.
[blockquote]Re-baptised? He’s got to be kidding.[/blockquote]
Does the Pope strike you as the kind of guy who would kid about this?
If people are not validly baptized (as has been decided here) then of course they need to be baptized properly. Why wouldn’t they be?
For an Anglican response (and a glorious and wonderful one), see:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/03/end-of-ecumenical-movement.html
I am pleased to count Fr. Hunwicke (who entertained me at his former country parish in Devon last July) as one of my friends. In fact, as a “papist” (I) and a “papalist” (he) we find we agree on almost all matters ecclesiastical.
Terry Tee (#8): Of course I believe in an essential Trinity – the Trinity is one in essence (homoousian), one in attribute, and one in operation. I think if you look at any orthodox Trinitarian theology from the Cappadocians right up through Karl Rahner, you’ll see that the only way to talk about the threeness of the Trinity is in terms of causality. Of course this causality is not bound to time and is not subordinationism. The Father is eternally the cause of the unbegotten Son, and the Holy Spirit is eternally caused by the Father and the Son. Western Trinitarianism has tended to confuse the three persons of the immanent Trinity (God in himself as one), and recognize a threeness in the economic Trinity (God to creation as three). Rahner’s emphasis goes back to the Eastern model of Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus. The immanent Trinity IS the economic Trinity. God is three and one in himself and three and one to us. The Father has to be the Father, the Son has to be the Son, and the Spirit has to be the Spirit – for all eternity, with or without the cosmos.
Re: #7,
Surely you’re the one who’s “kidding” (which I think a more charitable supposition than “displaying your ignorance unawares”). Someone “baptized” in the name of the “Creator … Redeemer … Sustainer” is no more baptized than someone “baptized” in the name of “Rock … Paper … Scissors” or “Moe … Larry … Shemp,” and so the only thing to do is baptize them, again, for real. It would be the same if, in consecrating the Eucharist, a priest were to say “Take and Eat this all of you, for This is a Meaningful Symbol.” In both cases there is, so to speak, no “there” there.
But look on the bright side — the way things are going now, within 50 years or so, all Episcopalians who become Catholic will have to be (re)baptized, like Mormons, for by that time they will alike be non-Christian cults.
I’m generally very open to expansive language in liturgy, but I draw the line at baptism and would never try to rename the Trinity (especially in the modalist sense that is current fashion.) The Trinity is about relationship, and I just don’t know what other words can be used.
However, I remember Bishop Wantland doing a teaching mission in my parish in RI at which he summed up the Trinity in St. Augustine’s words of the Lover, the Beloved, and Love. That works pretty well, but I won’t baptize anyone using anything less than the required formula.
To be honest, I really don’t bump into many people for whom this is a measure issue.
The Scriptures make it clear what words to use, the ones Jesus gave us: Matt 28:19 – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Ghost). Anything else is not Divine, but is a human invention and thus not Christian.
# 7 has just realized Christianity has sharp corners and edges to it. No, of course no one is *rebaptized*. It’s a once and for all thing. Either you are or aren’t. Christians with a 2000 year old faith have used the formula for as long as anyone knows. If someone is baptized upon entering the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church it means loud and clear that they weren’t before. It is a bit of a headache for the Orthodox clergy I know. They no longer can possibly take it for granted just what was said in a person’s baptism. It is *completely the whim of the minister*. The minister might be a Mormon (like the bishop of Utah) who uses (that day, anyway) the actual Trinity. Then the next afternoon it’s a nice trinity that came to mind. It’s that loose. The Orthodox and Rome aren’t. The only discussion this will cause will be a great deal of fuss as some undertrained Anglican clergy scrabble around trying to find seminary notes they thought they’d never have to look at again. That is if they learned about the Trinity then. Recall James Pike called the Trinity “Excess baggage” 40 years ago, and the Episcopal Church pretty much agreed with him. See page 427 in the BCP. Last line. The Trinity is strictly optional. Next edition it’ll be gone altogether.
The names are who God is. The other stuff is what He does. Our Lord commanded baptism in the Name.
Does the Pope strike you as the kind of guy who would kid about this?
If people are not validly baptized (as has been decided here) then of course they need to be baptized properly. Why wouldn’t they be?
No. Unfortunately our German Pope has little to no humor.
As for not being validly baptized, what should we do about Jesus? John the Baptist didn’t utter the words “In the Name of your Father, You and the Holy Spirit.” So since he was not validly baptized does baptism then become a lesser sacrament?
The pope’s distinction is ridiculous and without merit.
Brian,
Those “baptized” in the name of “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” were not baptized into the Holy Trinity and, thus, are not Christians. In addition to form and matter, there is the classic concept of intent in the sacrament. Intention is known by desiring to do what the Church does in Baptism and that is known by using the words used by the Church. Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer are not persons and not personal. Who is the Creator? It is God the Father? How about the Word or Son, through whom all things were made? How about the Holy Spirit – “the Lord, the Giver of Life?”
If you desire to do what the Church has done, then you will use the words the Church uses.
Many people will say that we can’t know God and that is true. We are simply unable to comrephend the Holy and Undivided Trinity. But, since we are unable to comprehend, then we must be bound by what God has chosen to reveal about Himself and God has revealed his Name as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” We are not baptized into the names of God, but the Name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you were not baptized into the Name of God, then you were not baptized as a Christian. Perhaps you were baptized as a gnostic or a Arian or a Modalist, but not as a Christian.
Phil Snyder
Re #20
The pope’s distinction is ridiculous and without merit.
Said the ant to the elephant. And which would probably be his reaction to most of the nonsense coming out of the Episcopal Church these days, if he even had any reason to take notice of it.
Re #20
Oh, and I meant to add: well done, all of the commenters who have grounded this matter in Trinitarian theology. What our brother Brian would probably dismiss as trivia regarding words.
I’m saddened by the absolute conviction that there is a rash of whimsical baptisms in the Episcopal Church or throughout the Anglican Communion and the resulting derisive anger. Is there any evidence that most, many, some, or even a few clergy are doing this on a regular basis?
As for intent, I would argue the intent to do what baptism does is there, but not the form. If such baptisms occur, the officiants are not intending to baptize the person into some other faith that is not the faith of the Church. They are, however, erroneously substituting their own comprehension of that faith as if it were superior to the church’s understanding of the faith.
Since a sacrament is a sure and certain conveyance of grace, I would do a conditional baptism as I couldn’t say for certain that the baptism did not occur through the grace of God despite the failings of the ritual.
Brian, the Jews practiced baptisms before John. They were not valid Christian baptisms.
As for John’s baptism read Acts 19:1-6. John’s baptisms, even of Jesus, were not Christian (Trinitarian) baptisms. Jesus did not need baptism, he agreed to John’s baptism to “fulfill all righteousness”. The fact the Jesus’ Baptism is not a Christian Baptism does not lessen the Sacrament – Baptism is given for our benefit as poor miserable sinners, not for Jesus who had no sin.
Being a Lutheran, I disgree with the pope on many issues. However, on this one the Vatican has it right. Why does anyone want to change the words give to us by Jesus, isn’t His authority enough for you? This distinction on baptism goes to the heart of the differences between you and me. I consider the Scriptures as the norming norm, you consider them something else. Only one view can be right.
the classic concept of intent
This is really the only valid argument, but it can be determined without invalidating the sacrament.
Why does anyone want to change the words give to us by Jesus, isn’t His authority enough for you? This distinction on baptism goes to the heart of the differences between you and me. I consider the Scriptures as the norming norm, you consider them something else. Only one view can be right.
The Scriptures have inaccuracies. If you’re a literalist, then you can not consider them the norm. As for only one view being right, that is a logical fallacy. Multiple views, even those that appear to be contradictory, can be right.
Can God the Father be the father properly so called and not be male?
This has aways seemed to be possible – even essential. Maleness is human; Father is a way of being. He is the Law as well as the creator thereof. Can we say of The Law, “Mother.”? This just doesn’t work conceptually, for Mother is a way of being that is not necessarily female, as Mother Nature is not female, but maintains Motherness nonetheless. Language here is not a source of clarity for the problem goes beyond language. LM
Congratulations. Ya’ll have, again, fallen into Brian’s little trap (which D.C. also springs from time to time. 1.) Make an outrageous statement/claim; 2.)draw contradictory comments which he then 3.) discounts because every source you cite he doesn’t accept. Well, even if he accepts them, he has 4.) twisted them.
In this case, the twist is the generic “The Scriptures have inaccuracies..” Oooooo, such wit and repartee. And then, if you actually accept as the Church’s testimony of the Trinitarian formula as reflected in scripture, you are a “literalist”.
Brian and D.C. have a different religion. They call it Christianity, but there is no reason to try and debate with them. They are manipulative and dishonest. Leave them alone.
It is about time that the Pope and other church leaders put the liberals and the feminist in their place and have things in the church done according to scripture.
And Words Matter falls into the same old pattern of reductionism.
The claims of the pope (and to an even greater extent, the ‘Anglicans’ here’) are outrageous. To suggest that there is a required formula which God will otherwise not honor is the ultimate outrage. The words that the pope denies are actually attributes of the Trinity. He denies these attributes and anthropomorphizes God into a simplistic ‘human’ entity. The self-professed Anglicans fall into the same reductionist trap and then ignore the traditional Protestant understanding.
In this case, the twist is the generic “The Scriptures have inaccuracies..†Oooooo, such wit and repartee. And then, if you actually accept as the Church’s testimony of the Trinitarian formula as reflected in scripture, you are a “literalistâ€.
And here again, Words Matter completely reduces the point to something s/he can understand. You must, as I do, accept ‘the Church’s testimony of the Trinitarian formula’ in order to be a follower of Jesus. Otherwise, you are a part of a different religion. How that relates to the pedantic use of Scripture not as Truth, but as Fact, is something entirely different.
Brian and D.C. have a different religion. They call it Christianity, but there is no reason to try and debate with them. They are manipulative and dishonest. Leave them alone.
I can’t speak for D.C., but my words are neither manipulative nor dishonest. As to leaving us alone, I would say “Physician, heal thyself.”
First Apostle: I am still doubtful about the language of causality applying within the Trinity. If you follow the logic of this then you may end up saying that the Father created the Son, and then we land up in Arianism and Christ is reduced to a kind of demiurge. The received Greek text says that the Son is τον ει του πατÏος γεννηθÎν which as you can see uses the language of generation. This is an eternal reality, not an event, because the latter would have a beginning and an end. If you want to cite the Cappadocian Fathers presumably you can give me a quote from Basil or the Gregories saying that the Father causes the Son?
LM, et.al., my understanding is that God is masculine, not male. Could someone explain the difference?
Brian – Scripture is good enough for me, not for you. Whatever I would bring up you will just dismiss as an “error” in Scripture. Since there is no common basis for a discussion, I will refrain from directing further directing comments to you. It is a waste of our time.
Brian (#26) – Classically, traditionally, the way to interpret the minister’s intent in a Sacrament was that the minister used the words that the Church used. In this case, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” falls short on the intent because the Church does not use those words. Thus, the Sacrament is invalid. If you want to invalidate it further, the words also constitute part of the “form” for a sacrament and these words are not part of the proper form. Thus, from the Roman Catholic perspective, the sacrament is invalid. I suspect that people baptized after a certain point will be conditionally baptized (“If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”).
It is not the Pope or the RC Church that is invalidating the Sacrament. They are simply recognizing that a valid sacrament did not take place.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#34 “the way to interpret the minister’s intent in a Sacrament was that the minister used the words that the Church used.”
Phil – how would you say this squares with the Eucharistic Prayer? There is not one single element of the Eucharistic prayer that is common to all known eucharistic prayers. The liturgy of Addai and Mari (dating to the early church but still used in the Syrian churches) does not contain the Words of Institution, yet Rome recognizes Syrian Eucharists as valid. However, their opinion of our Eucharists on the other hand . . .
One of their reasons for accepting the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is that the intent is gleaned from throughout the liturgy rather than being reduced to a couple of particular sentences. (Note also that the Orthodox don’t consider the Institution narrative to be consecratory.) As far as I know, Anglicans have never pronounced on the validity of the Syrian liturgy so I use Rome (and their more stringent standards) as an example.
Intent can’t be reduced to a simple verbal formula. I agree that not using the names of the Trinity calls the Sacrament into question, but I don’t see that intent can be ruled unless you look at the prayer of blessing said over the water, the repentance and conversion statements, and the fullness of the liturgy over all.
#33 – Mr. Edmon, nice to see I’m not the only one who recognizes the problem.
Rather sad that it required a decree from the Pope of Rome to address this. This is or should be common sense.
ICXC NIKA
A/O
“Christ is risen and you O death are annihilated!”
Phil
Phil
In this case, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer†falls short on the intent because the Church does not use those words. Thus, the Sacrament is invalid.
I understand the distinction, but I think that to say that the words are the beginning and end of the intent would invalidate alor of sacraments. Think of how many Protestants live their whole lives with ‘invalid’ baptism. Not to mention all of the non-liturgical Christians who have, by extension, never participated in the Lord’s Supper. This kind of silliness is a double-edged sword: it allows the Church absolute power, but at the expense of billions of Christians.
Bottom line: those who were baptized under the incorrect form simply won’t care.
Considering the Catholic Church DOES say that non-liturgical Christians have never actually participated in the “Lord’s supper”, I guess silliness is in the eye of the beholder.