We versus I (Catholic baptism)

[lauraw4321]

I come from a fundamentalist Protestant background, so I’m trying to understand this situation. Does church doctrine allow for grace in the circumstance of someone dying with this ineffective baptism? Does this effect marriages since they are a sacrament (at least I think they are?)? If your priest had said “we” at the baptism of one of your children, would you have known enough to tell them it was wrong and needed to be redone?

[Murphy101]

4 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I come from a fundamentalist Protestant background, so I’m trying to understand this situation. Does church doctrine allow for grace in the circumstance of someone dying with this ineffective baptism? Does this effect marriages since they are a sacrament (at least I think they are?)? If your priest had said “we” at the baptism of one of your children, would you have known enough to tell them it was wrong and needed to be redone?

I need more information on when the “we” is used and the circumstances of the baptism and death. 

[Drama Llama]

 

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I need more information on when the “we” is used and the circumstances of the baptism and death. 

I think she is referring to this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/16/arizona-baptisms-invalidated-priest-uses-one-wrong-word

[lauraw4321]

7 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

 

I think she is referring to this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/16/arizona-baptisms-invalidated-priest-uses-one-wrong-word

Yes. Sorry, should have linked to story. 

[JustEm]

Yes, they effect marriages if the priest was baptized incorrectly, which has happened, because he would have not have been able to receive Holy Orders if unbaptized and hence couldn't perform a Catholic marriage.  I assume it would also affect marriages of incorrectly baptized Catholics as well.

Yes, I would have known if the words were wrong at my children's baptisms.  Not saying I'm positive I would have actually heard the words. That would depend on how easy it was for me to pay attention in that specific moment.  

Yes, the Church believes there are avenues in which unbaptized people can go to heaven. It is often referred to as baptism by desire. I don't have time to go deeper into it unfortunately just wanted to answer your questions.

[regentrude]

It's such a bizarre situation since the precise words of the sacrament are a man-made convention. Why would God be nitpicky about something humans decided was the "proper" way?

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

It's such a bizarre situation since the precise words of the sacrament are a man-made convention. Why would God be nitpicky about something humans decided was the "proper" way?

That’s your pov. To the RCC pov the Bible demonstrates that God is not nit picky but does give significance on what we say and what we do.

I’m fascinated that the baptisms were invalided. I’m going to have to ask a canon lawyer about for their take on this!

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

That’s your pov. To the RCC pov the Bible demonstrates that God is not nit picky but does give significance on what we say and what we do.

Yes, but humans decided on the formula. God didn't dictate the English.

[Frances]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Yes, but humans decided on the formula. God didn't dictate the English.

And many Christians read the exact same words in the Bible, regardless of their language, and don’t interpret them the same way that Catholics do. They don’t do baptism the same way or have the same beliefs about baptism, but still consider themselves Christians.

[Spy Car]

15 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

That’s your pov. To the RCC pov the Bible demonstrates that God is not nit picky but does give significance on what we say and what we do.

I’m fascinated that the baptisms were invalided. I’m going to have to ask a canon lawyer about for their take on this!

I'm curious to hear what you find out.

I saw the story earlier in the week and it seemed odd to me both that a priest would make such an error and that baptisms were going to be invalidated as a result.

Bill

[Murphy101]

17 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Yes, but humans decided on the formula. God didn't dictate the English.

John the Baptist did not say “we”.

Bible is the inspired and sometimes actual word of God.  So we’ve got some dictation to go by in this.

Also it’s important to understand that the priest is acting as a conduit of the spirit of Christ. “We” is not appropriate bc it is not the priest and us peanut gallery doing the baptism. It is Christ within the priest (or in an emergency, the lay person) doing the baptism.

If someone thinks words just don’t matter in sacraments then this seems silly. 

But words and actions do seem to matter to God very much if the Bible is anything to go by. So they matter to the RCC too. 

[scholastica]

It affects all future sacraments the person being baptized receives. There have been a couple of cases of seminarians and priests finding out they weren’t validly baptized. This is a recent example.

[lauraw4321]

Thanks for everyone who responded. I assume then that hey faithful Catholic would choose to restart their sacraments if they found out that they are baptism was invalid?

[Murphy101]

This link may help answer questions. 
 

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

[Drama Llama]

Here are my thoughts as a sorta-Catholic.

I think in making sense of this, it's important to understand that the I/we distinction has been a major teaching point in Catholicism before this.  The Catholic church teaching has always been that a baptism that uses the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is valid.  So, for example, if you're a convert from a denomination that uses those words (like me), then you're considered baptized and are not rebaptized.  Similarly, if a priest is not available in an emergency, a lay person can use those words.  

So, the specific words were considered important before this came up.  In fact, there is enough emphasis on the specific words that I find it impossible to believe that this priest was regularly using the word "we" unless he was intentionally making a statement.  If I (a convert, with limited education) knows of the emphasis on the words, it seems impossible that he didn't.  If it's truly an error, it really calls into question his fitness to lead a parish.  So, in my opinion, the decision to move him out of that role makes sense.

But declaring the baptisms invalid makes no sense to me.  God works through human imperfection all the time.  The idea that if there was an error then God can't overcome that error, seems so limiting to me.  Am I supposed to believe that God is omnipotent, that He can do anything, but also that he can't send his spirit down onto someone seeking baptism, or on a child whose parents are seeking baptism, if the words aren't perfect?  That just seems like such weak faith to me.  Compared to other things He is said to be able to do, this seems like a minor obstacle for Him to overcome.  

I also don't really understand the logic that if someone was baptized by him (or, I guess technically was NOT baptized by him) then their marriage is called into question.  The Catholic church marries people who aren't Catholic pretty regularly.  So, if the sacrament of marriage can be performed on non-Catholics, then why would this invalidate it?  

But if I accept the fact that these baptisms were invalid, then I think the million dollar question here is when did he start using the wrong words?  If he has been using the wrong words since 1995 when he was ordained, and the Catholic church declares those baptisms invalid, then conceivably there could be a priest, or more than one priest whose ordinations are in question.  That would then call into question all sorts of other things -- eucharists, reconciliations, marriages, baptisms, anointing of the sick, performed by those priests who I guess technically wouldn't really be priests.  That is an enormous issue.  If he started using the words when he came to the US in 2001 and presumably started baptizing in English, or later than that, then that issue is less likely to exist, although I guess he could have baptized an adult who later got ordained.  

 

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Thanks for everyone who responded. I assume then that hey faithful Catholic would choose to restart their sacraments if they found out that they are baptism was invalid?

I guess that would assume the person whose baptism has been invalidated is alive, informed, and able to have a valid baptism.

The deceased might be in a tough spot.

Bill

 

[Spy Car]

4 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Here are my thoughts as a sorta-Catholic.

I think in making sense of this, it's important to understand that the I/we distinction has been a major teaching point in Catholicism before this.  The Catholic church teaching has always been that a baptism that uses the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is valid.  So, for example, if you're a convert from a denomination that uses those words (like me), then you're considered baptized and are not rebaptized.  Similarly, if a priest is not available in an emergency, a lay person can use those words.  

So, the specific words were considered important before this came up.  In fact, there is enough emphasis on the specific words that I find it impossible to believe that this priest was regularly using the word "we" unless he was intentionally making a statement.  If I (a convert, with limited education) knows of the emphasis on the words, it seems impossible that he didn't.  If it's truly an error, it really calls into question his fitness to lead a parish.  So, in my opinion, the decision to move him out of that role makes sense.

But declaring the baptisms invalid makes no sense to me.  God works through human imperfection all the time.  The idea that if there was an error then God can't overcome that error, seems so limiting to me.  Am I supposed to believe that God is omnipotent, that He can do anything, but also that he can't send his spirit down onto someone seeking baptism, or on a child whose parents are seeking baptism, if the words aren't perfect?  That just seems like such weak faith to me.  Compared to other things He is said to be able to do, this seems like a minor obstacle for Him to overcome.  

I also don't really understand the logic that if someone was baptized by him (or, I guess technically was NOT baptized by him) then their marriage is called into question.  The Catholic church marries people who aren't Catholic pretty regularly.  So, if the sacrament of marriage can be performed on non-Catholics, then why would this invalidate it?  

But if I accept the fact that these baptisms were invalid, then I think the million dollar question here is when did he start using the wrong words?  If he has been using the wrong words since 1995 when he was ordained, and the Catholic church declares those baptisms invalid, then conceivably there could be a priest, or more than one priest whose ordinations are in question.  That would then call into question all sorts of other things -- eucharists, reconciliations, marriages, baptisms, anointing of the sick, performed by those priests who I guess technically wouldn't really be priests.  That is an enormous issue.  If he started using the words when he came to the US in 2001 and presumably started baptizing in English, or later than that, then that issue is less likely to exist, although I guess he could have baptized an adult who later got ordained.  

 

I know more about Orthodox Judaism than Orthodox Christianity, but don't Orthodox Christians use different verbiage in their baptisms? And doesn't the RCC consider those baptisms valid?

I think so. But perhaps I'm misinformed. Someone here will know.

Bill

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

I highly recommend reading the link I posted. It’s from the actual diocese this happened in and answers many questions such as “is this legalistic?” And “why does the form matter”?

You do not have to agree of course but at least you will have a straight from the RCC horses mouth answers so to speak. 

[Drama Llama]

4 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I know more about Orthodox Judaism than Orthodox Christianity, but don't Orthodox Christians use different verbiage in their baptisms? And doesn't the RCC consider those baptisms valid?

I think so. But perhaps I'm misinformed. Someone here will know.

Bill

 

 

 

That is a good question.  I am pretty sure that Orthodox baptism is considered valid.  

I googled and here are the words from the Greek Orthodox church:

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.

So the "in the name of . . . " part is the same, but the I/we is avoided.  

[Murphy101]

[Spy Car]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

What about converts from Eastern Orthodoxy?

Bill

[Murphy101]

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Here are my thoughts as a sorta-Catholic.

I think in making sense of this, it's important to understand that the I/we distinction has been a major teaching point in Catholicism before this.  The Catholic church teaching has always been that a baptism that uses the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is valid.  So, for example, if you're a convert from a denomination that uses those words (like me), then you're considered baptized and are not rebaptized.  Similarly, if a priest is not available in an emergency, a lay person can use those words.

Correct. 

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

So, the specific words were considered important before this came up.  In fact, there is enough emphasis on the specific words that I find it impossible to believe that this priest was regularly using the word "we" unless he was intentionally making a statement.  If I (a convert, with limited education) knows of the emphasis on the words, it seems impossible that he didn't.  If it's truly an error, it really calls into question his fitness to lead a parish.  So, in my opinion, the decision to move him out of that role makes sense.

Which would be the reason he has been removed from pastoral duties. 

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

But declaring the baptisms invalid makes no sense to me.  God works through human imperfection all the time.  The idea that if there was an error then God can't overcome that error, seems so limiting to me.  Am I supposed to believe that God is omnipotent, that He can do anything, but also that he can't send his spirit down onto someone seeking baptism, or on a child whose parents are seeking baptism, if the words aren't perfect?  That just seems like such weak faith to me.  Compared to other things He is said to be able to do, this seems like a minor obstacle for Him to overcome.  

Whoa.  Wait.  Saying this is the proper licit valid way to do this does not limit God.  Is it possible that God can overcome this? Absolutely. But we as God’s people have an obligation to do our part too.

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I also don't really understand the logic that if someone was baptized by him (or, I guess technically was NOT baptized by him) then their marriage is called into question.  The Catholic church marries people who aren't Catholic pretty regularly.  So, if the sacrament of marriage can be performed on non-Catholics, then why would this invalidate it? 
 

One of the people being married has to be a baptized Roman Catholic. 
 

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

20 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

But if I accept the fact that these baptisms were invalid, then I think the million dollar question here is when did he start using the wrong words?  If he has been using the wrong words since 1995 when he was ordained, and the Catholic church declares those baptisms invalid, then conceivably there could be a priest, or more than one priest whose ordinations are in question.  That would then call into question all sorts of other things -- eucharists, reconciliations, marriages, baptisms, anointing of the sick, performed by those priests who I guess technically wouldn't really be priests.  That is an enormous issue.  If he started using the words when he came to the US in 2001 and presumably started baptizing in English, or later than that, then that issue is less likely to exist, although I guess he could have baptized an adult who later got ordained.  

I am sure there’s a lot of investigation and verifications to correct any such issues. 

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

What about converts from Eastern Orthodoxy?

Bill

What about them?

[scholastica]

Just now, Spy Car said:

What about converts from Eastern Orthodoxy?

Bill

As long as they used the same formula with the same intent, it’s valid. My baptism in the Episcopal church was valid when I converted.

 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Correct. 

Which would be the reason he has been removed from pastoral duties. 

Which makes sense to me. 

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Whoa.  Wait.  Saying this is the proper licit valid way to do this does not limit God.  Is it possible that God can overcome this? Absolutely. But we as God’s people have an obligation to do our part too.

And the people who went to Father Andres to be baptized or have their children baptized did their part to the best of their ability.  I don't know whether Father Andres made an honest mistake or intentionally changed the words, but it seems almost certain that most of the people he baptized came, or were brought to the sacrament because they intended to be brought into the church, and receive the sacrament of baptism.

If the church was saying, well we don't know if God overcame that and you're really baptized?  I guess I could sort of understand that.  But it seems like the church is saying that God didn't overcome that.  That, instead, He denied them the grace of baptism because of human error, not sin because it's only sin if you're conscious of it, but an honest mistake (e.g. choosing the wrong priest, or not listening closely enough).  I find that hard to swallow.

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

One of the people being married has to be a baptized Roman Catholic. 
 

I am sure there’s a lot of investigation and verifications to correct any such issues. 

But if, in fact, we're coming from the point of view that sacraments after an invalid baptism are invalid, then there are going to be reconciliations that are invalid, including reconciliations involving people who are now dead, and annointings of the sick, including people who are now dead.  How can those be corrected?  

[Drama Llama]

6 minutes ago, scholastica said:

As long as they used the same formula with the same intent, it’s valid. My baptism in the Episcopal church was valid when I converted.

 

I think he's asking if, given that the words in Orthodoxy are slightly different although not different in the same way, are their baptism considered valid.  

 

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, scholastica said:

As long as they used the same formula with the same intent, it’s valid. My baptism in the Episcopal church was valid when I converted.

 

But the Orthodox don't use the same formula, from my (less than highly informed) understanding. And I thought the RCC accepted Orthodox baptisms?

Bill

[Spy Car]

14 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

What about them?

The words used in Orthodox baptisms are different from those of the RCC.

I thought the RCC considers Orthodox baptisms valid, but I ain't no canon lawyer.

Bill

[Terabith]

The RCC definitely accepts Orthodox baptisms.  I think the reasoning is that NO pronoun is utilized, so the issue is skirted and not super relevant.

My theory on this is that the decision that the baptisms (and therefore any sacraments that came afterwards, especially things like ordinations, came down from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka the Inquisition) RIGHT BEFORE former Pope Ratzinger got called on the carpet for other scandals.  I suspect this decision was a distraction.  

But it's one that is incredibly graceless and puts a lot of people in very painful positions of worrying about the salvation of loved ones.  

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

That’s your pov. To the RCC pov the Bible demonstrates that God is not nit picky but does give significance on what we say and what we do.

I’m fascinated that the baptisms were invalided. I’m going to have to ask a canon lawyer about for their take on this!

My first thought was that there was confusion, and the baptisms were illicit, but valid, but nope. 

1 hour ago, lauraw4321 said:

Thanks for everyone who responded. I assume then that hey faithful Catholic would choose to restart their sacraments if they found out that they are baptism was invalid?

Yeah, it would actually be pretty easy. As an adult you can do it all in one fell swoop. A convert would do study first, but a cradle catholic in this situation probably can get it done quickly. 

19 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

If the church was saying, well we don't know if God overcame that and you're really baptized?  I guess I could sort of understand that. 

That's what I'm reading - that God certainly CAN work outside the rubric laid down, but to be CERTAIN you should repeat things properly. 

I mean, the Catholic church is left brained and set up like a legal system..so this doesn't surprise me. 

[busymama7]

In our church, the words of sacraments are very important and need to be correct every time.  To accomplish this, there are at least one and often two witnesses needing to be present listening to the exact words and in the case of baptism, watching to be sure the person is fully immersed.   I have never heard of anything being invalidated because if there is a mistake, it's done over immediately, correctly.  This sounds like a very sad situation for all involved.  

[Starr]

I can't imagine that invalidating the baptisms is going to encourage the faithful. 

[lauraw4321]

14 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

John the Baptist did not say “we”.

Bible is the inspired and sometimes actual word of God.  So we’ve got some dictation to go by in this.

@Murphy101 Sorry, I’m really confused by this. None of the gospels in my Bible record John the Baptist saying anything particular to Jesus when he was baptized. Is the Catholic Bible different? Or is there church history to support certain words from JtB?

 

ETA: the former Southern Baptist in me must also point out that Jesus was an adult and he wasn’t sprinkled on the head. Just an aside. 😉

Edited February 17, 2022 by lauraw4321
More words and adding a tag

[Murphy101]

33 minutes ago, Starr said:

I can't imagine that invalidating the baptisms is going to encourage the faithful. 

Encourage the faithful to what?

If I found out for ANY reason my marriage certificate wasn’t valid - my fault or not - I’m going to make it valid asap.  Someone telling me it isn’t valid is not what made it invalid.  Either the marriage was properly entered into and the proper form was done for it or it wasn’t.

I would do that if it was a secular record.

Why would I not be at least as compelled if it were a record of sacrament?

Why would it matter what sacrament it might be?

I agree this is a huge pita situation that priest put people in and I have empathy for that.  Just not enough to ignore that this needs made right.

Point of clarification: the baptisms were never valid. The church saying they weren’t valid is not what invalidated them. The facts of how the baptisms were done is what made them invalid from the start. 

[teachermom2834]

If I found out our sacraments weren’t valid I would be aggravated and do what I needed to do to rectify it. 
 

However, I also have faith that God is not at all limited by any or this. Of course. I would not fret or feel responsible for anything gone awry through no fault of my own on any of it and I would trust that God knew the deal. 
 

But I would do my part to sort it out and make it right once I knew something had to be made right. So yes, we follow the rules and yes God transcends all of the rules. 
 

But what the heck was up with that priest? How did this happen? I was distracted by babies at Baptisms but that should sound strange to any Catholic’s ears. How did it happen so many times? 

[Drama Llama]

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Encourage the faithful to what?

If I found out for ANY reason my marriage certificate wasn’t valid - my fault or not - I’m going to make it valid asap.  Someone telling me it isn’t valid is not what made it invalid.  Either the marriage was properly entered into and the proper form was done for it or it wasn’t.

I would do that if it was a secular record.

Why would I not be at least as compelled if it were a record of sacrament?

Why would it matter what sacrament it might be?

I agree this is a huge pita situation that priest put people in and I have empathy for that.  Just not enough to ignore that this needs made right.

Point of clarification: the baptisms were never valid. The church saying they weren’t valid is not what invalidated them. The facts of how the baptisms were done is what made them invalid from the start. 

I'm trying to imagine how devastated my child would have been if he learned that his church believed that he wasn't really baptized, or that the last anointing of the sick he received, the one that needed to carry him through 6 terrible months of being denied the sacrament due to covid, was valid because the priest wasn't really baptized.  

How would I ever be able to forgive a church that did that to my child?  How would I ever be able to believe in a God who could possibly do that to my child, when I could, instead, believe in a God who would have realized that it was a mistake and honored the intent and belief of his parents, or the priests parents when presenting him for the sacrament, and chosen to still allow him to receive that grace?

You talk about making it valid, like it's an easy thing, but sometimes it's impossible.  

[Murphy101]

22 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

If I found out our sacraments weren’t valid I would be aggravated and do what I needed to do to rectify it. 
 

However, I also have faith that God is not at all limited by any or this. Of course. I would not fret or feel responsible for anything gone awry through no fault of my own on any of it and I would trust that God knew the deal. 
 

But I would do my part to sort it out and make it right once I knew something had to be made right. So yes, we follow the rules and yes God transcends all of the rules. 
 

But what the heck was up with that priest? How did this happen? I was distracted by babies at Baptisms but that should sound strange to any Catholic’s ears. How did it happen so many times? 

Indeed. I second all those sentiments and questions. 

[ktgrok]

10 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

 

But what the heck was up with that priest? How did this happen? I was distracted by babies at Baptisms but that should sound strange to any Catholic’s ears. How did it happen so many times? 

Moreover, every parish I've been to does at least some baptisms during the normal Sunday Mass. Plenty are private, but at least SOME are during Mass - when at some point another priest should have heard him. 

10 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I'm trying to imagine how devastated my child would have been if he learned that his church believed that he wasn't really baptized, or that the last anointing of the sick he received, the one that needed to carry him through 6 terrible months of being denied the sacrament due to covid, was valid because the priest wasn't really baptized.  

How would I ever be able to forgive a church that did that to my child?  How would I ever be able to believe in a God who could possibly do that to my child, when I could, instead, believe in a God who would have realized that it was a mistake and honored the intent and belief of his parents, or the priests parents when presenting him for the sacrament, and chosen to still allow him to receive that grace?

You talk about making it valid, like it's an easy thing, but sometimes it's impossible.  

Ugh. I hope people are approaching this with their kids (and adults) as, "God is bigger than our rules, and given the writings on the baptism of desire, etc I wouldn't worry one bit, but to clear up the paperwork we are going to have a ceremony and redo everything."

But I'd be mad. But I also left over other stuff, so trying not to bring my personal baggage into this. 

[Junie]

A question that I have about this situation:

If someone was baptized incorrectly, does that also make their marriage invalid? Are their children now considered illegitimate? 

 

[Starr]

3 minutes ago, Junie said:

A question that I have about this situation:

If someone was baptized incorrectly, does that also make their marriage invalid? Are their children now considered illegitimate? 

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34209994/vatican-invalidate-baptism-formula-we/

I found this online.

[MercyA]

@Murphy101, I admire your consistency.

[MercyA]

I never knew that Catholics believe it is actually Jesus doing the baptizing, through the priest. That's very interesting. 

I've always understood it to be pastors or priests or even laypeople who are doing the baptizing, in the name of Jesus. Jesus told His disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And even at the beginning of His ministry it is recorded that "Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples" (John 4). It seems like if it's the disciples doing the baptizing, it wouldn't matter if it's "we."

Not something I'd quibble over ordinarily, but I do feel for the people affected.

Edited February 17, 2022 by MercyA

[ktgrok]

54 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I never knew that Catholics believe it is actually Jesus doing the baptizing, through the priest. That's very interesting. 

I've always understood it to be pastors or priests or even laypeople who are doing the baptizing, in the name of Jesus. Jesus told His disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And even at the beginning of His ministry it is recorded that "Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples" (John 4). It seems like if it's the disciples doing the baptizing, it wouldn't matter if it's "we."

Not something I'd quibble over ordinarily, but I do feel for the people affected.

Yeah..I'm not sure I'm understanding the church's teachings here. And I've had a graduate level class on Catholicism, lol.

I mean, Catholics believe God is the one at work in ALL sacraments. Humans "serve" or "participate" but God does the heavy lifting. 

Yes, the priest acts in the person of Jesus for the eucharist, but that's a special thing, and supposedly that's the reason only men can be priests - because only men can stand in for Jesus. That can't apply to baptism, because in an emergency a woman can baptize a baby and it is valid - so baptism is different. 

Moreover, if the "I" is supposed to refer to God, well, God uses the plural "we" in the Bible...so why can't "We" refer to the trinity? 

We don't baptize in the name only Jesus, in fact that is explicitly NOT allowed, so we should be fine if the pronoun refers to God. If the pronoun refers to the human/humans, what does it matter?

[lauraw4321]

14 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

@Murphy101 Sorry, I’m really confused by this. None of the gospels in my Bible record John the Baptist saying anything particular to Jesus when he was baptized. Is the Catholic Bible different? Or is there church history to support certain words from JtB?

 

ETA: the former Southern Baptist in me must also point out that Jesus was an adult and he wasn’t sprinkled on the head. Just an aside. 😉

I think I'm going to have just remain curious.

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Yeah..I'm not sure I'm understanding the church's teachings here. And I've had a graduate level class on Catholicism, lol.

I mean, Catholics believe God is the one at work in ALL sacraments. Humans "serve" or "participate" but God does the heavy lifting. 

Yes, the priest acts in the person of Jesus for the eucharist, but that's a special thing, and supposedly that's the reason only men can be priests - because only men can stand in for Jesus. That can't apply to baptism, because in an emergency a woman can baptize a baby and it is valid - so baptism is different. 

Moreover, if the "I" is supposed to refer to God, well, God uses the plural "we" in the Bible...so why can't "We" refer to the trinity? 

We don't baptize in the name only Jesus, in fact that is explicitly NOT allowed, so we should be fine if the pronoun refers to God. If the pronoun refers to the human/humans, what does it matter?

I think this is a pretty specifically Catholic belief, that the priest stands in the place of Jesus and Jesus acts through him.  Not just in the eucharist but in all the sacraments.  But that baptism is unique in that someone else can also stand in that place and Jesus can act through them. 

I get why, when whoever wrote the liturgy of the baptism, they chose the word "I".  Because Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, or God acts through one person.  It's the action of that one person, not of the congregation, so "I" makes more sense than "we".  And I agree that if the priest was unintentionally saying it wrong, he should stop saying it wrong and start saying it right, and if he was intentionally saying it wrong to make a point, well that's not the place or way to do so, and he should stop that too.

What I don't get is the idea that somehow if there's human error God can't overcome that obstacle.  

I also don't really understand how no one noticed.  I feel as though, if I was standing at the font, as parent or godparent, I'd notice.  There are often other priests or deacons there.  Did they not notice?  Or is that people noticed but no one thought it was that important.  

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, Junie said:

A question that I have about this situation:

If someone was baptized incorrectly, does that also make their marriage invalid? Are their children now considered illegitimate? 

 

You can have a sacramental Catholic marriage if one member is a baptized Catholic, and the other isn't.  So, if the other spouse was baptized, it would be fine. 

If the priest was invalidly baptized, then their ordination would also be invalid, it seems, and so would any sacraments they performed.

Having said that, the concept of illegitimacy isn't a Catholic one.  The Catholic church doesn't consider any children illegitimate. 

[teachermom2834]

Does anyone know anything about this priest or parish? Like is it very liberal? That is the only thing that makes any kind of sense. That the priest thought saying “we” instead of “I” was a nice communal we are all doing this as one kind of thing. And the people were like “isn’t that great that the priest included us all as the ones Baptizing?” 
 

I was at a wedding once were the priest gave the wedding couple (who were not extraordinary ministers) communion and then sent them out into the congregation to serve communion to everyone (Catholic or not). Well, that is certainly not regular. But it was in a very liberal diocese that was known for that sort of thing and people were like “isn’t that wonderful?”

That is what came to mind with the “we” and how it came to be used and went on for so long. But even in liberal areas people visit and complain!

Edited February 17, 2022 by teachermom2834

[barnwife]

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Moreover, every parish I've been to does at least some baptisms during the normal Sunday Mass. Plenty are private, but at least SOME are during Mass - when at some point another priest should have heard him. 

This made me smile. You are clearly not from a rural area. I have never attended a baptism where there has been more than one priest. I assume you mean because there would be other priests concelebrating, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that's not the experience for a pretty darn big percentage of Catholics. IOW, many parishes don't have more than one priest. In fact, in my diocese, it's mroe common for parishes to share a priest. (Or at least, that's my highly educated guess without actually looking at an official list of churches and assigned priests.) 

And I am laughing now because I am reading other responses and another poster mentioned other priests and deacons. Hahahaha...that's just outside my reality, having a second (or more) priest available. Also, someone was ordained a deacon from our parish once...and they immediately sent him to a parish about 45 min. away. Technically, another deacon from our parish will be ordained soon. I *think* he might actually be allowed to stay and serve here, but I'll believe it when it happens.

Overall, I think my views in this situation fall in line with @Baseballandhockey's. I think if I heard that, I'd wonder I'd heard right. I don't know if I'd be brave enough to say anything in the moment though. And yeah, personally, I think I fall in the "God knows/knew the intent of the parents/person being baptized" so he can make it work even with the priest's mistake. If such a mistake affected me/mine, we'd certainly do what was needed to make it right in the eyes of the church though.

 

[scholastica]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Yeah..I'm not sure I'm understanding the church's teachings here. And I've had a graduate level class on Catholicism, lol.

I mean, Catholics believe God is the one at work in ALL sacraments. Humans "serve" or "participate" but God does the heavy lifting. 

Yes, the priest acts in the person of Jesus for the eucharist, but that's a special thing, and supposedly that's the reason only men can be priests - because only men can stand in for Jesus. That can't apply to baptism, because in an emergency a woman can baptize a baby and it is valid - so baptism is different. 

Moreover, if the "I" is supposed to refer to God, well, God uses the plural "we" in the Bible...so why can't "We" refer to the trinity? 

We don't baptize in the name only Jesus, in fact that is explicitly NOT allowed, so we should be fine if the pronoun refers to God. If the pronoun refers to the human/humans, what does it matter?

The priest acts in persona Christi in all the sacraments.

[barnwife]

15 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Having said that, the concept of illegitimacy isn't a Catholic one.  The Catholic church doesn't consider any children illegitimate. 

I quoted this solely to make sure it got seen by whomever needs to see it, because I've run into that misconception a lot in life.