March 13, 2008

Repercussions Spin

With all this talk of the validity of the baptismal formula and the concern of some Catholics (and rightly so) that their baptism may not be valid, it occurs to me to wonder what are the even longer range impacts of the CDF issuance. I know of several parishes that don’t give the appropriate blessing of Father Son, Holy Spirit. If baptism is not validly conferred by substituting Creater, Redeemer, Sanctifier, how can you be appropriately blessed or how can the Mass begin properly if you are substituting all this other verbiage in order to get around the “patriarchal” terminology? That’s why all this word switching started-as part of the no male words at any cost vocal gymnastics that feminist theology wraught.

It’s possible that I’m reading too much into this. Always possible. I tend to overthink things, generally, but really shouldn’t people be wondering why they should continue to substitute their own words for ANYTHING at Mass (music, blessing, liturgy) if it’s clear that something as major as Baptism is not valid if you are substituting words?!? Shouldn’t people in positions of authority (priests, liturgists, musicians) at the parish level be worried? Gosh, maybe I should think about stopping my efforts to change the Responsorial Psalm to inclusive words for Him and Father.

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic. I am definitely trying to make people think (or freak out, you know me) and I admit it. Sure, it’s clear that it’s more serious that your Baptism is not valid than it is that the musician mangled the Psalm to avoid the word “Father” but, think about it, is it really? How can you say it's not valid for BAPTISM for crying out loud but then its o.k. during the Mass? We all know its not o.k. Well, most of us reading this blog know it's not o.k. but I know there are some of you out there that are bristling. You know who you are. You are the same folks that get upset when you are told you have to follow the GIRM at Mass. But I can’t help but think this interpretive ruling is meant to go beyond the Baptism question. Really, why is the CDF bothering? I’m sure they know that those inclusive terms are being used elsewhere. Isn’t this supposed to be a wack upside the head? Hey, you, cut it out! Or, is it only me that thinks so?

5 Comments:

Blogger Kevin said...

As someone, somewhere wrote on another blog - they are confusing job title (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) with the job description (Creater, Redeemer and Sanctifier.)

March 13, 2008 4:03 PM  
Blogger Tom in Vegas said...

If I received an invalid baptism, I think the one who should be worried mostly is the renegade heretic who was carrying out his own misguided agenda at my expense. Basically, a sin, a rather severe one, on his behalf at the expense of a soul under his care. I think our Lord would never hold the recipient of a schismatic baptism responsible for such an act if he or she DID NOT KNOW they were being subjected to a twisted ritual.

As for the agitator who wants to be politically correct and apply his own "Catholicism", I would make sure (if I was bishop) that individual only sprinkled water on himself...during his bath and on no one else.

You have to have a bit of a heavy hand when dealing with these individuals otherwise the problem will only get worse.

March 13, 2008 4:28 PM  
Blogger swissmiss said...

Cathy:
I think it has a lot to do with your prior post. In my limited experience, a lot of these folks don't believe in the Real Presence so who cares what words you use for the Consecration. Hell isn't real or God would never, ever send us there, so who cares what words you use for any of the sacraments and then who cares for the sacraments anyway cuz the whole Church is just oppressive and out-dated. I think we've lost the sense of working out our salvation in fear and trembling and hung our hat on the touchy-feely Jesus who some how tossed out the 10 commandments.

March 13, 2008 5:44 PM  
Blogger Cathy_of_Alex said...

Good comments.

March 13, 2008 7:18 PM  
Blogger Adrienne said...

Unfortunately Tom, God doesn’t “blame” the recipient but they are still not baptized. I’ll have to query Father Bill again to get the correct term.

Father Tim over at Hermeneutic of Continuity has a post on March 2 that addresses that, plus the other ramifications of an invalid baptism.

March 13, 2008 7:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>
Locations of visitors to this page