Theology

The chancellor of the diocese, Father Jim Spence, said the priests at the parish were ordered to revert to the traditional formula in 2004 but that some people may still be unaware their baptisms were wrongly administered.

He said he was unaware how many people it may affect. The church is currently considering whether there will be a need for those illicitly baptised to have the ritual legitimately.

“It doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means it’s illicit, he said.

“It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, it means that it shouldn’t have happened.

“I guess (those affected) would have all sorts of reactions. I would hope that anybody whos troubled by it would get in touch.”

Baptism, the first of seven sacraments in the church, is the rite of initiation into the church and is usually administered shortly after birth.

Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage.

I hope that Fr. Spence was misquoted, because if not this is serious misinformation. The doctrinal note from the CDF specifically said " Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of ‘non-baptised’".

So it is not a case of illicit baptisms, but invalid baptisms. This also does effect some sacraments. For those who were married after an invalid baptism it does not change the fact that they were married, it means they will not be sacramentally married until they are baptized. It also does not effect confessions in any real sense other than that they must be baptized before they can go to confession again now that they are aware of the problem. It does though invalidate anybody who was confirmed or ordained who was invalidly baptized. These two sacraments can only be conferred on a baptized person.

Today the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith answered two recent disputed questions regarding allowable
baptismal formulas and what to do with persons “baptized” using them:

    Made public today were the responses of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions
concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard
formulae.

    The first question is: “Is a Baptism
valid if conferred with the words ‘I baptise you in the name of the
Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier’, or ‘I baptise you
in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the
Sustainer'”?

    The second question is: “Must people
baptised with those formulae be baptised ‘in forma absoluta’?”

American Papist has the story and I doubt
my readers will be surprised at the answers by the CDF.

It does make me reflect on the fact that
progressives keep finding new ways for people to not actually receive
the sacraments.  For example women priests,  Communal
confession without individual confession,  and invalid
baptismal formulas. And when they are not finding ways for people to
not actually receive the sacraments they make excuses for how people
can receive them unworthily.

WASHINGTON (CNS) — A Vietnamese-American theologian’s 2004 book on religious pluralism contains "pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful," the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine said in a Dec. 10 statement.
Father Peter C. Phan’s "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue," published by Orbis Books, also contains "statements that, unless properly clarified, are not in accord with Catholic teaching," the committee said.

In its 15-page statement, the committee said it undertook an evaluation of "Being Religious Interreligiously" at the request of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and "invited Father Phan to respond" to questions.

"Since Father Phan did not provide the needed clarifications, and since the ambiguities in the book concern matters that are central to the faith, the Committee on Doctrine decided to issue a statement that would both identify problematic aspects of the book and provide a positive restatement of Catholic teaching on the relevant points," the statement said.

The statement was signed by Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, and the six other committee members.

Father Phan, a former Salesian and now a priest of the Dallas Diocese, holds the Ellacuria chair of Catholic social thought in the theology department at Jesuit-run Georgetown University in Washington.

The statement on "clarifications required" in Father Phan’s book cited three areas of concern:

— Christ’s role as "the unique and universal savior of all humankind."

— The "salvific significance of non-Christian religions."

— The Catholic Church as "the unique and universal instrument of salvation."

Quoting frequently from the book, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and "Dominus Iesus," the 2000 declaration of the Vatican doctrinal congregation on the "unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the church," the committee said Father Phan’s book "could leave readers in considerable confusion as to the proper understanding of the uniqueness of Christ."

Although "the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is affirmed at some points" in the book, it is presented at other times as "not exclusive or absolute," the committee said.

Father Phan says in the book that the terms "unique," "absolute" and "universal" in relation to Jesus’ role as savior "have outlived their usefulness and should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents."

It is rather interesting that he has decided not to defend himself to either the USCCB or the CDF. His defenders say that his works can be understood in a manner perfectly consistent with the faith and if this was true you would think that he could show his critics how this is true.

But it is pretty hard for statements from his book such as the following can be justified.

Religious pluralism . . . is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle. That is,
non-Christian religions may be seen as part of the plan of divine providence and endowed
with a particular role in the history of salvation. They are not merely a "preparation" for, "
stepping stones" toward, or "seeds" of Christianity and destined to be "fulfilled" by it.
Rather, they have their own autonomy and their proper roles as ways of salvation, at least
for their adherents.

The statement from the USCCB says in response to this concept.

The book reasons that if in fact God has positively willed the existence of the
non-Christian religions as ways of salvation, then the very goal itself of universal conversion to
Christianity is misguided. "Indeed, if religious pluralism belongs to divine providence and is not
just the fruit of human sinfulness, then it may not and must not be abolished by converting all the
followers of non-Christian religions, at least during our common journey in history.”

But will this statement signed by several bishops included his own have any effect on his employment status at Georgetown?

A reader sent me a ZENIT piece of an interview with Dominican Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation concerning the new CDF document. Some have wondered about the timing of the document.

Q: Why was it decided to have this document come out at this time?

Father Di Noia: That’s an important question.

I suppose it has to do with the reaction to an earlier document, the famous " Dominus Iesus" that came out, if you recall, in 2000.

I remember that when I was working for the bishops’ conference in the United States, and we had received advanced copies of this document, and I was asked to prepare the bishops for " Dominus Iesus," I said well, there is absolutely nothing new here, so the bishops will be fine with it. But as you know, the reaction to " Dominus Iesus" was extremely, let’s say, contestative. I mean, it was a very difficult document.

What we saw was the people […] didn’t understand that not simply we had to speak of Christ as being the universal savior, but that the Church was the principle means by which the grace of Christ would be communicated to the world, and that, if you recall, created most of the controversy, certainly ecumenically.

So this was kind of a wake-up call. I’d say that "Dominus Iesus" was a wake-up call, that 30 years after Vatican II, people seemed to have forgotten something very essential that Vatican II taught. And so it was out of that moment that the cardinal members of the congregation — and also other people, bishops and so on, raising questions about this — the congregation decided to proceed with a clarification.

The document is called "Responses to [Some] Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." It is a very narrow point, it’s a relatively short document, as you know, and the commentary attached, so it’s a very precise set of responses to questions that have arisen.

Because the easiest way to commit controversy in the Church is to restate something she has always believed.

Many people also have raised the issue of ecumenical dialogue and this interview also addresses it. This type of question has always confused me. It it is as if ecumenical dialogue is to conducted in the mode of a used car salesman. "This Church has only been visited on Sundays by old ladies." That the only way to dialogue is to play down what we really believe and to ignore what they believe. The old bait and switch. I would have thought that complete honest was the best form of dialogue.

In related news Phillip Blosser points to a piece in Christianity Today by Stan Guthrie on the CDF document. While Mr. Guthri certainly doesn’t accept the Church’s teaching he doesn’t get worked up over it and appreciates the "bright lines" drawn and know that they are restatements.

Update: Fr. Powell posts on the article and says much better what I was trying to say.

American Papist is doing some fine coverage and provides a a roundup of reactions. He notes "Pope: Only Catholics Have ‘Means Of Salvation’" is winning the race thus far and in another post "Vatican hits ‘wounded’ Christian churches."

In yet another posts he wonders about the journalistic coverage since the majority of pulled phrases have been from the commentary and not the actual document itself.

Part of the negative reaction is that anytime you start a phrase with "One true …" you are bound to have the highly relativistic media reaction. They see this a great opportunity for a theological cat fight between the Catholic Church and Protestantism by playing up that within the Church’s view of ecclesiology that Catholic don’t call communities without apostolic succession churches. They will of course not mention that we will call anybody validly baptized a Christian, something that some Protestants are willing to do with Catholics (though this is much improved.)

Though some Protestants are also reacting negatively to this document. It is rather interesting that you rarely ever hear Protestants refer to their church as "the one true Church." It would seem to me that such a claim would be natural to any "church", though I do believe that the Mormons try to make the claim. Maybe since Protestantism is much more highly individualistic and with much of the theology not directed at the visible church that the claim is much more rare. Plus the historical pedigree of so many Protestant churches is tied much more to the current pastor and his preaching style than to a specific set of unchangeable doctrines that can be traced back to their founding.

The Catholic Church can both make the claim as the one true Church and at the same time be able to defend it rationally and historically. Sure some Baptists rely on the phony trail of blood to imagine proto-Baptists that were persecuted throughout history, but it doesn’t bear close inspection. For many the so-called Reformation is the beginning of church history and for others than relate it to when Pastor Bob took over at a non-denominational church (which for the first time in history is finally the one that is fully bible believing). "I found the one true church and really lucked out since happens to be in my neighborhood!"

The great thing about being Catholic is that it can satisfy you on so many levels. If someone asks you who founded your church you can reply "Jesus" with a straight face and don’t have to account for some 1500 year gap or how the church Jesus founded so quickly apostasized. Though of course the only reason to become a Catholic is that you believe it is the one true Church in the first place. Sure there are theological divisions such as in Protestantism, but there is also a magisterium to handle them. People can still dissent from the authentic teaching magisterium, but you know that they are in fact dissenting.

Not to engage in Catholic Triumphalism, but it is really great to be Catholic!

Zenit publishes an article written by Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, on "The Importance of Priestly Celibacy" that was published in the Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano. The article is very good and covers both the Apostolic origins and early history of celibacy in the Church along with its theological dimensions. The article is really a good short treatment on the subject to counter such nonsense as the Church supporting celibacy in the 1200’s because of property inheritance problems.

One thing that never fails to make me laugh is any mention of The Synod of Elvira (300-303?) . Elvira just does not bring to mind celibacy for me.

From a post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

…To paraphrase G.K.Chesterton, "Tolerance is a nice word for indifference and indifference is an elegant word for ignorance." The reason for having an open mind (like the reason to have an open mouth) is eventually to close it–because it has been filled with something good.

Tolerance, on its own, is a weak virtue that eventually turns on itself with a suicidal bent. This is because the one thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance, and the more tolerant a person becomes the more every little bit of intolerance becomes intolerable. So the person who puts tolerance as the highest and only virtue, finally is incapable of tolerating anyone or anything or any law that limits or defines anything because to limit or define any behavior or any sort of person is perceived as a form of intolerance.

I recently read Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions by then-Cardinal Ratzinger which was published in 2004. This book is highly recommended if you want to go deeper on the topic of tolerance especially on the topic of religious tolerance. This book proves once again how silly the caricature of him that was made after the publication of Dominus Iesus. Like most books of his on theology I felt the pain of normally unused synaptic muscles being strained to their utmost – but hey no pain, no gain – and this book is definitely in the category of gain.

Listening tot the Gospel today at Mass of Mark 10:2-16 I was reminded me of the same juxtaposition that I had been reading in Matthew 19 recently. Where Jesus teaches about marriage and then transitions immediately to Jesus rebuking the Disciples for not letting the children come to him. This transition brought to me the sin of contraception where deliberately children are prevented from coming to him.

Today at Mass our Deacon did the homily and he brought out the same point in a very good homily. It was great to hear an elegant explanation of the Church’s teaching on both contraception and marriage. He even touched on why there can be no such thing same-sex marriage. I really wish I could remember in detail his homily since it had so much red meat in it it would make a vegetarian faint. Homilies of this sort are not rare in my parish, I just thought this one was especially forthright on these subjects.

Mark Shea has an interesting column at Catholic Exchange called "Why Catholics Don’t Know What They are Talking About" and later relates why that is a good thing. Specifically he talks about the Council of Nicea and how the results were different than what most observers would have predicted. If Nicea would have occurred in the modern age I am sure they would have received the same treatment that Humanae Vitae received in ours. The overwhelming consensus would be that the Church would accept something that it indeed did not and subsequently there would be shock and surprised at this.

Though our response should be wonder and awe at the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and that no matter how much we try to muck things up the Church survives us. Regardless of what popular heresy is currently being touted and even held by a majority of believers it will become but a footnote in the long history of the Church. Modern heretics just aren’t very creative and just rewarm and combine old ones. They won’t even get a heresy named after them as a booby prize.

GRAND RAPIDS — More than 400 years after the Protestant Reformation, the Christian Reformed Church is trying to take back a historic slap against the Catholic Church.

It’s not easy.

Delegates to the CRC Synod spent about three hours Wednesday attempting to tone down a 1563 Protestant doctrine declaring the Catholic Mass "a condemnable idolatry."

That section of the Heidelberg Catechism, a preaching and teaching tool for many Protestant churches, still smarts for West Michigan Catholics who work with or marry CRC members.

Two years ago, the CRC Synod declared the controversial passage no longer should apply as written. What they could not decide — and still could not Wednesday — was what to put in its place.

In classic CRC fashion, delegates debated a complicated compromise. A study committee proposed keeping the passage but putting it in brackets, accompanied by a footnote explaining members are not required to recognize it.

The aim is to preserve the integrity of a historic text but also "function as a warning" against any idolatrous teachings that deny Christ’s final sacrifice.

Advocates said the catechism got the Catholic Mass wrong in the midst of the Reformation’s theology war. The CRC consulted with Catholic bishops and their findings were reviewed by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by the future Pope Benedict XVI.

"It demonstrates the maturing of the Christian Reformed Church to the point where we can look at our own mistakes of the past and own up to them," said the Rev. Lyle Bierma, a Calvin Theological Seminary professor who chaired the committee.

The condemnation muddies good working relationships with Catholics and is unlike any other catechism passage, said the Rev. Harry Winters Jr. of Akron, Ohio.

"It’s the only one that instead of expressing what we believe, turns on someone else, expresses what they believe and condemns it," Winters said.

Bishop Walter Hurley, leader of West Michigan’s 163,000 Catholics, gave the Synod high marks for tackling "a complex issue rooted in historically conditioned documents."

"I respect whatever decision they make," Hurley said. "It’s something I find encouraging and that can only bring us closer together."

But delegates got tangled in the wording of a proposed footnote longer than the passage itself. Some argued to keep the condemnation as is, saying the Catholic Eucharist denies that Christ’s crucifixion paid for humanity’s sins once and for all.

"If the Roman Catholic Church conforms to that, glory be to God," said the Rev. James den Dulk of Sparta. "But don’t change the Heidelberg Catechism until that time."

Frustrated by several split votes, delegates sent the issue back to committee for fine tuning. The matter likely will be taken up again today.

Well that is at least progress, but I would suggest that Rev. James den Dulk simply pick up a Catechism to find what the Church teaches on the subject so that he can affirm his "Glory be to God."

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. 184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. 185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." 186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." 187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." 188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. 189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."