People who have been baptised with one of two non-traditional baptismal formulas that specifically avoid invoking the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" have not been baptised at all, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has ruled.

At least one "progressive" archdiocese has set up a helpline for parishioners anxious about the validity of their baptism. In two brief responses to questions proposed, made public on 29 February, the CDF said that baptism with the following two formulas was not valid: "I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier" and "I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Liberator and of the Sustainer". According to the doctrinal congregation, any subsequent sacraments received after such an invalid attempt at baptism were also invalid. Such persons would have to be unconditionally re-baptised with the correct and traditional formula, the CDF said in its ruling.

A CDF consultant, Mgr Antonio Miralles, said that the Vatican had received reports that the two formulas were being used in "Anglophone countries". In a commentary on the ruling in L'Osservatore Romano the Opus Dei priest said the unorthodox formulas were devised by proponents of "so-called feminist theology as a way to avoid saying Father and Son, words considered male chauvinist". Mgr Miralles said they "subverted faith in the Trinity" and were "invalid" because they did not respect the "commandment of Christ" as transmitted in Matthew 28:19. He said those who administered baptism with such formulas "defraud the one who receives such action".

In another commentary Cardinal Urbano Navarrete said that those who tried to administer baptism with such formulas could incur canonical penalties. "The injustice is manifestly more serious if the minister that deceives the community is a cleric - deacon, priest or bishop," said the 87-year-old canon lawyer.

In Australia, Archbishop John Bathersby of Brisbane - an archdiocese which includes the only parish in the country where the practice is believed to have occurred - has asked his liturgical commission to recommend the best way of dealing with pastoral and sacramental issues if anyone in his archdiocese has been affected by the Vatican ruling on invalid baptisms. The archbishop - whose archdiocese is seen as "progressive" - said that although he believed the use of the two outlawed formulae was the exception rather than the rule in his archdiocese, he had been made aware "in the past" that one or other of them had been used in baptismal ceremonies in a Brisbane parish. At the time, he had asked that the practice cease.

The chancellor of the archdiocese, Fr Jim Spence, confirmed that in 2004 an issue had arisen over baptisms in St Mary's Church, South Brisbane, and priests throughout the archdiocese had been asked to abide by the traditional baptismal formula, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Fr Spence told The Tablet that he had no idea how many people in Brisbane may be affected by the ruling, and the archbishop had asked people who might be concerned to come forward. The Brisbane church authorities have set up a helpline for parishioners  concerned about the validity of baptisms.

Archbishop Bathersby said that he would he provide direction to the archdiocese and the clergy on how to address this matter with the "utmost pastoral sensitivity" once he had been briefed by the CDF. "If either of the formulae indicated by the Congregation was used, the persons affected will need to be treated with great understanding and compassion, especially those people who believed that they or their children had received a valid baptism."

In the United States, commentators said that the ruling would have little effect because hardly any Catholics have been baptised under the formula, which is sometimes called the "feminist baptism". Gender-neutral Trinitarian language has been used occasionally for years in some Protestant denominations, though almost never with the open acknowledgement of church hierarchies. Bishops of the US Lutheran Church, for instance, unanimously rejected the gender-neutral formula in 1991.