Liturgical Language Matters

Recently, you may have heard, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix declared thousands of

baptisms invalid because a priest used "we" instead of "I" in the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the traditional formula in the West, while the East utilizes "The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

The purpose of this blog post is not about that situation in particular, but it is the cause of it--namely addressing the larger issue of adherence to liturgical rites. There has been varying responses and opinion about the Autocephalous Catholic world. These have ranged from not wishing to deviate at all from what is in the book to questioning why is this so important to the claim that jurisdictions or individuals use their own language for most sacraments. This has been a very divisive issue with accusations of adherents being too rigid to questioning "[the dependence on] the shamanistic parroting of particular words."

I freely admit that I fall into the camp that we need to adhere to what has been traditionally used and I will die on this hill. I received all my sacraments in Non-Papal Catholicism and sacramental integrity has always been part of my understanding of Autocephalous Catholicism. I would caution anyone entering our movement, especially former Roman Catholics, that we have traditionally always regarded sacramental forms as important. I was not going to address this issue at all because it has been so acrimonious, but (for me) it is of primary significance. I believe it is dangerous and problematic to deviate from language that is used by the rest of Christendom. My perspective is that 1) it impacts ecumenical relationships by calling into question Autocephalous Catholic sacraments and 2) the forms that have been used have historic, theological meanings that need to remain intact. 

Regarding the first perspective, I believe that it behooves us to use the same formularies as the rest of Christendom or to use formularies that have broad acceptance. This makes things easier for laity who come to us for sacraments to transfer their membership to other Christian bodies with the sure and certain knowledge that their baptism and confirmation will be regarded as acceptable or valid by those bodies. It is a fallacy to believe that all people who join our parishes or jurisdictions will be there from baptism to death. Following common formularies makes our relationships with other Christian bodies easier because we maintain the same liturgical language which has theological meaning.

The second perspective, perhaps the most important, is that theological language has meaning. As Christians, we study Scripture because we believe that the experiences and words there have impact on how we live our faith. We also pass down hymns, like the Phos Hilaron from the 3-4th centuries, whose words "O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and see the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee" still resonate today.

The same is true about our sacramental words. While I am an adherent of tradition, I am not so naive to believe that Our Blessed Lord celebrated a High Mass for the first Eucharist. I also will freely affirm that I HOPE that sacraments performed incorrectly still convey grace out of mercy. However, I do believe that formulas developed throughout time and took on meaning that is still impactful for us today. Opponents might say "but all tradition started somewhere," which is true, but it is self serving to believe that we can do it better than those who have come before us. 

IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE that members of the Independent Sacramental Movement and Autocephalous Catholic, Independent Catholic, Independent Anglican, (so called non-canonical) Orthodox individuals use the essential sacramental form for all of their sacraments. These are VERY VERY MINIMAL. A sentence. If you want to compose your own Mass, it's not my thing but be my guest. But keep the Dominical words. If you want to baptize a child do it with water with a common formula. Add in whatever you want, but please do not mess with the essentials. The same is true for ordination. I have watched some ordination rites with horror, not knowing who was consecrated, what was consecrated, or if someone was consecrated. The actual requirements are extremely simple. Otherwise, we call into question our sacraments and we do a disservice to those who need our sacramental ministry.

There are certainly options for those who want to compose their own rites which better fit their theology. Some Protestant groups, for example, like the Oneness Pentecostals. Or, there are non-orthodox (little o) groups which do not intend to carry on the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to them. But please, exercise caution when using the Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox moniker in your name if you disbelieve in the importance of sacramental words. 

“Our modern theology, which in many ways has ceased to be personal, i.e. centered on the Christian experience of "person," nevertheless - and maybe as a result of this - has become utterly individualistic. It views everything in the Church - sacraments, rites, and even the Church herself - as primarily, if not exclusively, individual "means of grace," aimed at the individual, at his individual sanctification. It has lost the very categories by which to express the Church and her life as that new reality which precisely overcomes and transcends all "individualism," transforms individuals into persons, and in which me are persons only because and inasmuch as they are united to God, and, in Him, to one another and to the whole of life.” ― Alexander Schmemann