Reading:
Acts 10:48
Matthew 28:19
Write:
[Peter] ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…
Reflect:
There is only one correct formula that can be used for a Christian baptism. I think Peter was drawing a distinction between what was being done in the name of John the Baptist and what was being done in the name of Jesus. John the Baptist’s baptism was popular even after he was executed. But by the time Peter reached Cornelius’s house, Christianity was already quite distinct from John the Baptist.
John the Baptist’s baptism was a baptism for repentance of sins. Whereas the Christian baptism, the baptism of Jesus Christ, is a baptism of regeneration, not just repentance. The baptism of Jesus Christ is being born again as Jesus told Nicodemus early in John’s Gospel. So, Peter ordering them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ was not a baptismal formula.
There are some groups who claim to be Christian who insist on using this “formula” as more important than Jesus’ direct command at the end of Matthew’s Gospel which I quoted above. Anyone who was baptized just in the name of Jesus Christ is not considered property baptized according to Catholic teaching. Personally, I think if you went to the origins of this decision to baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, you would discover that movement as having extremely strong anti-Catholic bias.
This makes this kind of baptism problematic. Not just because it is going against Catholic teaching, but because it is going against the command of Jesus who said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus made a command to be baptized with a Trinitarian formula, how can they possibly justify going against that?
But within the Catholic Church, there are two major mistakes that have been made since the second Vatican Council in the name of “relevancy” regarding the Trinitarian formula. I want to take up those two issues now. Both of them invalidate a baptism.
The first form of supposed relevancy has to do with a mixed up concern over “politically incorrect ‘sexist’ language.” There were those who were choosing to baptize “in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” Instead of Father they used Creator, instead of Son they used Redeemer, instead of Holy Spirit they used Sanctifier.
These are characteristics of the different persons of the Trinity. BUT THEY ARE NOT THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY. Jesus told us to baptize in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
We have a personal God. He has identified himself clearly as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. To avoid those names is to depersonalize a God who has chosen to reveal himself in a very personal way through Jesus.
The other major mistake was also a politically incorrect move. It was being done, I think, with the idea that it is the community of the church that is welcoming this new member into the church. The formula that was being used was “we baptize you” but the proper term is “I baptize you”. The problem with this mistake is that the baptizer is baptizing a new Catholic by the authority of Jesus, not the community.
This is true in every one of the sacraments. The ordained man represents, or re-presents, Jesus in the community. So, when he says “I baptize you” it is really Jesus, not the entire community that is doing the baptism. The parents and godparents and anyone else who is present are witnesses to the baptism.
Apply:
The issue is that there are specific reasons for why we have the sacraments the way we do. It is not something that people can just do anyway they think is relevant. There are consequences to the way in which we do or fail to do the sacraments. It is a real travesty of faith that God’s people are subjected to these mistakes by… well-meaning people (I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for that).
But God’s people have a right to the sacraments properly done, period. I spoke a couple weekends ago, I think it was at Assumption Church, about some priests not liking the change in the words of consecration in the new Roman Missal. The priest used to say that the blood of Christ was shed “for you and for all”, but that is not what Jesus said. In the change in the Missal, it is now “for you and for many”, which Jesus said at the Last Supper.
But as I said there are some priests who still think they know better. I have heard one priest for instance say that the blood of Christ was shed “for you, and for many, and for all”. That is a direct challenge to the authority of the church and opens up the door to a terrible heresy! I am not sure, but I think some of these issues surrounding the phrase for baptism are potential heretical statements also… if they have not been condemned by the church directly.
The core issue here is fidelity to the faith. What has Jesus and his church called us to do? When people have heard contradictory points of view from different priests it is sometimes hard to figure out what is truth. Unfortunately, it tends to be human nature to go with what seems easy or pleasing. This is not always the correct way to do things. I am not saying our faith should be hard or harsh, but it does demand of us faithfulness and holiness that leads us to the truth.
Sometimes I think I am dwelling on the same issues repeatedly. But today there are so many challenges to fidelity to the faith. I think this “lack of fidelity” is one of the reasons why so many people are so confused about what is the correct way to practice the faith. So, they give up and walk away.
Please continue to pray that the faith will be faithfully presented to the faithful. Um, yeah that is right: faith, faithfully, faithful.
Acts 10:48
Matthew 28:19
Write:
[Peter] ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…
Reflect:
There is only one correct formula that can be used for a Christian baptism. I think Peter was drawing a distinction between what was being done in the name of John the Baptist and what was being done in the name of Jesus. John the Baptist’s baptism was popular even after he was executed. But by the time Peter reached Cornelius’s house, Christianity was already quite distinct from John the Baptist.
John the Baptist’s baptism was a baptism for repentance of sins. Whereas the Christian baptism, the baptism of Jesus Christ, is a baptism of regeneration, not just repentance. The baptism of Jesus Christ is being born again as Jesus told Nicodemus early in John’s Gospel. So, Peter ordering them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ was not a baptismal formula.
There are some groups who claim to be Christian who insist on using this “formula” as more important than Jesus’ direct command at the end of Matthew’s Gospel which I quoted above. Anyone who was baptized just in the name of Jesus Christ is not considered property baptized according to Catholic teaching. Personally, I think if you went to the origins of this decision to baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, you would discover that movement as having extremely strong anti-Catholic bias.
This makes this kind of baptism problematic. Not just because it is going against Catholic teaching, but because it is going against the command of Jesus who said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus made a command to be baptized with a Trinitarian formula, how can they possibly justify going against that?
But within the Catholic Church, there are two major mistakes that have been made since the second Vatican Council in the name of “relevancy” regarding the Trinitarian formula. I want to take up those two issues now. Both of them invalidate a baptism.
The first form of supposed relevancy has to do with a mixed up concern over “politically incorrect ‘sexist’ language.” There were those who were choosing to baptize “in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” Instead of Father they used Creator, instead of Son they used Redeemer, instead of Holy Spirit they used Sanctifier.
These are characteristics of the different persons of the Trinity. BUT THEY ARE NOT THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY. Jesus told us to baptize in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
We have a personal God. He has identified himself clearly as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. To avoid those names is to depersonalize a God who has chosen to reveal himself in a very personal way through Jesus.
The other major mistake was also a politically incorrect move. It was being done, I think, with the idea that it is the community of the church that is welcoming this new member into the church. The formula that was being used was “we baptize you” but the proper term is “I baptize you”. The problem with this mistake is that the baptizer is baptizing a new Catholic by the authority of Jesus, not the community.
This is true in every one of the sacraments. The ordained man represents, or re-presents, Jesus in the community. So, when he says “I baptize you” it is really Jesus, not the entire community that is doing the baptism. The parents and godparents and anyone else who is present are witnesses to the baptism.
Apply:
The issue is that there are specific reasons for why we have the sacraments the way we do. It is not something that people can just do anyway they think is relevant. There are consequences to the way in which we do or fail to do the sacraments. It is a real travesty of faith that God’s people are subjected to these mistakes by… well-meaning people (I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for that).
But God’s people have a right to the sacraments properly done, period. I spoke a couple weekends ago, I think it was at Assumption Church, about some priests not liking the change in the words of consecration in the new Roman Missal. The priest used to say that the blood of Christ was shed “for you and for all”, but that is not what Jesus said. In the change in the Missal, it is now “for you and for many”, which Jesus said at the Last Supper.
But as I said there are some priests who still think they know better. I have heard one priest for instance say that the blood of Christ was shed “for you, and for many, and for all”. That is a direct challenge to the authority of the church and opens up the door to a terrible heresy! I am not sure, but I think some of these issues surrounding the phrase for baptism are potential heretical statements also… if they have not been condemned by the church directly.
The core issue here is fidelity to the faith. What has Jesus and his church called us to do? When people have heard contradictory points of view from different priests it is sometimes hard to figure out what is truth. Unfortunately, it tends to be human nature to go with what seems easy or pleasing. This is not always the correct way to do things. I am not saying our faith should be hard or harsh, but it does demand of us faithfulness and holiness that leads us to the truth.
Sometimes I think I am dwelling on the same issues repeatedly. But today there are so many challenges to fidelity to the faith. I think this “lack of fidelity” is one of the reasons why so many people are so confused about what is the correct way to practice the faith. So, they give up and walk away.
Please continue to pray that the faith will be faithfully presented to the faithful. Um, yeah that is right: faith, faithfully, faithful.
