I am sure you recall that the CDF issued a note about the invalidity of baptisms where the sacramental form was changed to a non-Trinitarian version.
This was sparked by what was going on in Brisbane, Australia, where priests were changing the form and therefore baptizing invalidly.
Now I read this in the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Brisbane. My emphases and comments.
Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane admits baptism blunder
By Neil Hickey
March 06, 2008 12:54pm
DOZENS – even hundreds – of Catholics in Brisbane may have been illicitly baptised in a bungle the church is now trying to correct.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane says the blunder may affect anyone baptised at the St Marys Catholic Church before 2004. [Oh gee whiz… sorry! Just a blunder… just a little mistake!]
The notice has been issued after a fresh directive this week from the Catholic Church in Vatican City. [Good heavens! Who is this writer?]
The baptisms used two illicit formulas: "I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier and "I baptise you in the in the name of the Creator and of the Liberator and of the Sustainer. [Ehem… not just illicit but also INVALID. That is the point… right? They were INVALID!]
The legitimate [valid] formula is "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
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 [INVALIDLY] baptised to have the ritual legitimately. [VALIDLY]
"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 [sic] 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. [Ummm…. Father… are you sure?]
Anyone concerned they may be affected should call 3268 3040.
What did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith say:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formulas
«I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier»
and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer»
First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?
Second question: Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?
To the first question: Negative.
To the second question: Affirmative.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 1, 2008.
William Cardinal Levada
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
What does this mean?
"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. [Read: the baptisms are INVALID, not just illicit.] 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’".