20 years worth of baptisms invalidated (1 Viewer)

[LonghornSaint]

Wait, why is it "I" in the first place? Christ is not the one dunking them, why not say "Christ baptises you"?

 

[DaveXA]

Wait, why is it "I" in the first place? Christ is not the one dunking them, why not say "Christ baptises you"?

It's been a minute but iirc, priests are aren't just messengers, but they're ordained into the priesthood and as such, they're essentially intermediaries who have been imparted or imbued, I forget the proper term, with the Holy Spirit and as such, can perform the Sacraments, which is why they can say "I". It's similar for marriage, confirmation etc.

Brennan probably could explain it better than I can though.

 

[Brennan77]

He brought it up because he was curious. Nothing more than that. The discussion has been entirely respectful. So I don't see an issue here. And this is the EE board. If you just want football news, you can always stick to the SSF.

I'm glad someone honestly asked the question. It's interesting and should be talked about because the issue is confusing and worrisome to many.

That said, I'm not sure the discussion has been entirely respectful. Just sayin...

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.........

I don't think this is true. The Didache suggests otherwise and it was written between the years 65-80.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Today I've consulted a few articles/podcasts on this subject by respected canon lawyers who have interesting perspectives on this subject. The idea here seems to be less about the pronoun and more about the intention of the priest. Consider that in this instance it is incredibly easy and simple to just get this right and avoid trouble altogether. The person changing the language is doing so intentionally. It's not a passive form or some cultural manifestation or linguistic ambiguity. If you're replacing I with We in the western church within the last 50 years, it's on purpose. So it's as if the Church is saying that if you're the sort of person who is intentionally doing this incorrectly, your intentions cannot be trusted and therefore neither can the validity of the baptisms.

It's been a minute but iirc, priests are aren't just messengers, but they're ordained into the priesthood and as such, they're essentially intermediaries who have been imparted or imbued, I forget the proper term, with the Holy Spirit and as such, can perform the Sacraments, which is why they can say "I". It's similar for marriage, confirmation etc.

Brennan probably could explain it better than I can though.

Correct. Priests do not have their own priesthood. They are ordained into the priesthood of Christ. I'd shy from the term intermediary. Christ is the one Mediator. From the Catechism...

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

In the person of Christ the Head . . .

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23



It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25

So within the context of the sacraments, it is not the priesthood of the man before us that we encounter, but the very priesthood of Christ himself. Could God have done this in others ways? Sure. But this is the way that has been given to the Church and as physical beings in time and space, it seems fitting that the Incarnate Lord comes to us in physical means that allow us to encounter his grace efficaciously.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I hear ya Dave , I'm a proud Catholic and it ruffled my feathers a little bit . I feel like the Catholic religion always gets judged . I'm all good now , just whatever.

That's fair enough, but just to make sure the point is driven home. You also participate in many EE threads that have nothing to do with the Saints. You've had opinions on music, Meatloaf's death, inflation, and many other topics that have nothing to do with the Saints football team. I really doubt you're asking for all of that stuff to be removed.

We are first, and foremost a community of Saints fans. But we are more than just our love of Football.

And I'm Catholic too. This is just weird news and I can understand it being confusing for non-Catholics. Heck, it's confusing to me.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Woof. What a headache...

https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/#FAQ

So, the part I quoted (that isn't shown in this post), is the key thing that bugs me. It's clearly stated that God isn't bound by the sacrements, he's bound to them. Meaning, God can extend his grace regardless of the words used. But, the Church's opinion is to just issue a do over, and also look into other sacrements, including possibly some folks marriages? I mean, what a crazy burden on the people, and on the church.

It makes me think of my Confirmation. I recall the Bishop telling us, if we're just doing it for our parents, the Holy Spirit will not bless you. You wont' enjoy the true sacrament. You'll just get some oil on your head. While the Church/public can't know your heart, God does. So, I have a hard time thinking that even though this Priest was doing it wrong, that innocent babies (and some kids and adults) will have invalid Baptisms, in the eyes of the Lord. In the eyes of the Church, yeah, the priest willfully did it wrong, but why punish the people who had no control over that?

 

[Bleu Raeder]

I'm glad someone honestly asked the question. It's interesting and should be talked about because the issue is confusing and worrisome to many.

That said, I'm not sure the discussion has been entirely respectful. Just sayin...



I don't think this is true. The Didache suggests otherwise and it was written between the years 65-80.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Today I've consulted a few articles/podcasts on this subject by respected canon lawyers who have interesting perspectives on this subject. The idea here seems to be less about the pronoun and more about the intention of the priest. Consider that in this instance it is incredibly easy and simple to just get this right and avoid trouble altogether. The person changing the language is doing so intentionally. It's not a passive form or some cultural manifestation or linguistic ambiguity. If you're replacing I with We in the western church within the last 50 years, it's on purpose. So it's as if the Church is saying that if you're the sort of person who is intentionally doing this incorrectly, your intentions cannot be trusted and therefore neither can the validity of the baptisms.



Correct. Priests do not have their own priesthood. They are ordained into the priesthood of Christ. I'd shy from the term intermediary. Christ is the one Mediator. From the Catechism...

So within the context of the sacraments, it is not the priesthood of the man before us that we encounter, but the very priesthood of Christ himself. Could God have done this in others ways? Sure. But this is the way that has been given to the Church and as physical beings in time and space, it seems fitting that the Incarnate Lord comes to us in physical means that allow us to encounter his grace efficaciously.

Brennan, I came to this thread for your response on this and I am a bit surprised, and a bit not.

What concerns me here is how the church may decide to treat this. If the priest was intentional in his actions while the faithful did not know the difference, how can the faithful be held accountable for the intention of the priest? Is there no way to correct this in the eyes of the church other than recycling these folks back to the beginning? Is the church saying the baptized should have known the difference and called out the priest in the instance? How do we do this with the dead?

It would seem to me that many of the victims would just opt to leave the church because the work of years was destroyed in an instant.

I have spoken with a couple of folks who refer to themselves as "recovering Catholics" and interestingly they point to this event as an encapsulation of the reason they left the church. They equate it to other things they have seen in their experience with the church which ultimately led them to leave and seek God in other ways.

 

[JenningsTruckers]

That's fair enough, but just to make sure the point is driven home. You also participate in many EE threads that have nothing to do with the Saints. You've had opinions on music, Meatloaf's death, inflation, and many other topics that have nothing to do with the Saints football team. I really doubt you're asking for all of that stuff to be removed.

We are first, and foremost a community of Saints fans. But we are more than just our love of Football.

And I'm Catholic too. This is just weird news and I can understand it being confusing for non-Catholics. Heck, it's confusing to me.

Fair enough , great post Ward !

 

[Brad Mojo]

Thousands Of Priest’s Baptisms Rendered Invalid For Using Wrong Word

A priest resigned earlier this month after his diocese discovered the baptisms he held over two decades were invalid because he had changed a single word while performing the sacrament. What do you think?

www.theonion.com

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

don't understand those who whine about people talking crosswise about christianity
from jesus's own mouth

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The Beatitudes are probably the tract that separates christianity from most other religions, but it seems to have the least sway over christians
curious

 

[SWJJ]

Question for the Catholics here,

Do you believe that those that got the baptisms and have since died will spend an eternity in Hell now?

 

[Sailorsaint]

For a very long time the Catholic Church controlled the information given to the masses because no one knew how to read and they placed their trust in the church to steer them. Then the Bible was mass produced and more people learned to read and began to question what they were being told, not because they thought it a lie, but because they didn't understand the churches interpretation of what they were reading. A lot of people lost that total trust in the church. Question for the Catholics out there....Does this undermine peoples faith in what they are being told?

 

[UK SAINTS]

I don't think this is true. The Didache suggests otherwise and it was written between the years 65-80.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

I have never heard of "The Didache" before (I am not Catholic).
I did a quick google search, but would you mind providing what you believe to be an accurate link and explanation of it?
Thank you!

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Question for the Catholics here,

Do you believe that those that got the baptisms and have since died will spend an eternity in Hell now?

I'm trying to remember the rule now. In the past, we were taught about Limbo as a place in between Heaven and Hell where the unbaptized went. It was then revised to include those who suffered from mental illness who committed suicide. In Limbo, the Church says that those souls still have an opportunity at full salvation, but even that wasn't always the case.

As a Catholic, this would piss me off seriously if I had been in that number. I'm reading the story out of Detroit about a priest who saw a video of his baptism to find out that the wrong words were used and his baptism AND ordination were invalid. Not only that, but all of his masses, every consecration of the host, every wedding and last rites, every absolved sin have all been invalidated. The only thing the Church is letting stand are the baptisms he conducted.

I'd be pissed.

 

[GeauxWhoDats]

I can see the TV ads now.

"Has your Baptism been voided by the Church due to a clerical error? Well you might be eligible for compensation of reimbursement of your monthly Tithe. Call 1-800-99 LAW USA"

 

[Saint_Ward]

I have never heard of "The Didache" before (I am not Catholic).
I did a quick google search, but would you mind providing what you believe to be an accurate link and explanation of it?
Thank you!

I've never heard it brought up before, but...

Didache

Didache (DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES), a short treatise which was accounted by some of the Fathers as next to Holy Scripture. It was rediscovered in 1883 by...

www.catholic.com