20 years worth of baptisms invalidated

Good article about this. And first I've seen with an estimated number.

Thousands
===========================================

Their marriages, confessions, promises of salvation — all of these things ceased to exist for thousands of Catholics baptized by an Arizona priest who, it turns out, was saying the sacrament script wrong.

The Rev. Andres Arango for decades said “We baptize you in the name of the …” instead of “I baptize you in the name of …” After diocesan officials found that out, they said last month that people who Arango baptized aren’t technically Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible, from a Catholic point of view, for other sacraments.

The story made news around the world. Some wondered how what appears to have been an innocent mistake over pronouns could threaten people’s very sense of religious security. Others saw evidence of a longtime debate among Catholics about who holds power, laypeople or the clergy. Cases of priests whose own childhood baptisms had the word “we” started to surface.

Looking for more information, The Washington Post this week interviewed the Rev. Thomas Reese, a political scientist and longtime journalist who has written several books about the inner workings of the Catholic Church. Reese first wrote about the baptism wording issue in 2020, in an article whose headline began: “Vatican causes chaos.”

Q: What prompted you to write about this in 2020?

A: The [Vatican’s doctrine-enforcing arm] that year issued a document saying any baptism using “we” vs. “I” is not only illicit but invalid; the baptism doesn’t happen. I said then that this will cause absolute chaos in the Church. There were priests doing this out of the feeling it might make [the baptism ceremony] more colloquial. No one thought anything serious about it. Maybe it’s against the rules but the baptisms were still valid, people thought. When the [Vatican] did this in June 2020, I felt it was a pastoral disaster for the Church and for people. I thought: “They have to pull this rule, to reverse this.”

Q: What did the Vatican do in 2020?

A: They issued what’s called a “doctrinal note,” which are usually responses to questions they get from bishops or priests. I don’t think the use of “we” was widespread. It was one of those things that happened after the Second Vatican Council [in the 1960s] when people were a little looser with liturgical rules. Some Catholics wanted to be more inclusive and less clerical, and some felt using “we” would do that. I don’t think anyone thought that deeply about it. It was one of those things some people did. Others thought: “That’s nice,” or just didn’t think it was that big a deal.

Q: Are specific words important? If so, why would some priests think they can just pick alternates?

A: The hierarchy wants priests to follow the words in sacramental ceremonies very strictly. On the other hand there is structure in [the sacrament] for some adaptations. And also there is disagreement. We know historically there were times in the Church when priests made up prayers. In different communities they had different lingos. In the early centuries of the Church, they didn’t have books. It wasn’t until the printing press that you could force people to use the exact same language.

And there’s some evidence that in ancient times, people would baptize “in the name of Jesus” [instead of in the name of the holy trinity of “the father, the son and the holy spirit,” as is said today]. Orthodox churches use a passive voice: “This person is baptized …” and the Catholic Church has recognized those baptisms for centuries.

The bottom line is, historically the words of baptism have changed. To make suddenly a big deal of whether a priest uses “I” or “we” is mind-boggling.........

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...-our-q-a-for-details/ar-AATWl5G?ocid=msedgntp