We versus I (Catholic baptism)

[scholastica]

15 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

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. 

Also, in the Latin rite, the two spouses are the ministers of the sacrament and the priest or deacon is the Church’s witness. It invalidates his holy orders and that may affect whether he was a witness or not. That would be the mechanism for those marriages to be invalid. They may not even be invalid because marriages are presumed valid based upon the form and intent of the spouses. Marriages from other faiths that follow the same form are presumed valid when someone enters the church.

[MercyA]

21 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

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?”

Oh my. Did he specify that it was for believers, or did they literally serve it to everyone?

[teachermom2834]

Just now, MercyA said:

Oh my. Did he specify that it was for believers, or did they literally serve it to everyone?

Anyone who wanted to receive. Of course some people were all “this is so lovely” and other people had steam coming out of their ears. 
 

That came to mind when I heard this story. Sometimes priests just have to do it their own way or put their own spin on things. Which of course is the opposite of what they are supposed to do. 

[Starr]

I'm an Episcopalian and I've had a Bishop and priests in different locations give me communion knowing I'm not Catholic. They have their own internal differences that aren't necessarily on the books.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, barnwife said:

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.

 

Ok, yup, my big city side is showing. Here Catholic parishes are near mega church size, with giant campuses and at least 2-3 priests, often with additional retired priests assisting. 

1 hour ago, scholastica said:

The priest acts in persona Christi in all the sacraments.

Ok, but given that a priest can't be a woman because he acts in persona Christi, but baptisms CAN be done by a woman..either women CAN act as persona Christi since they can and do in baptism and therefore should be able to be priests, OR when performing a baptism the priest is not acting as personal Christi. It makes no sense otherwise. 

But I'm still stymied because "we" obviously and innately INCLUDES the priest and therefore Christ if he is indeed acting as persona Christi. The inclusion of others shouldn't limit Christ's ability (or the priests)/power. But I've got way bigger nits to pick, so whatever. 

[barnwife]

21 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Ok, yup, my big city side is showing. Here Catholic parishes are near mega church size, with giant campuses and at least 2-3 priests, often with additional retired priests assisting. 

Ok, but given that a priest can't be a woman because he acts in persona Christi, but baptisms CAN be done by a woman..either women CAN act as persona Christi since they can and do in baptism and therefore should be able to be priests, OR when performing a baptism the priest is not acting as personal Christi. It makes no sense otherwise. 

But I'm still stymied because "we" obviously and innately INCLUDES the priest and therefore Christ if he is indeed acting as persona Christi. The inclusion of others shouldn't limit Christ's ability (or the priests)/power. But I've got way bigger nits to pick, so whatever. 

I can't help you re: women because if you can't see why in times of emergency an exception to the general "men only" rule is made, I don't think anything I could say will help.

But, regarding the use of "we", I *think*, it's because they don't want anyone to believe that "we" includes the congregation. I could totally see people thinking or believing that if "we" was used. 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, barnwife said:

I can't help you re: women because if you can't see why in times of emergency an exception to the general "men only" rule is made, I don't think anything I could say will help.

But, regarding the use of "we", I *think*, it's because they don't want anyone to believe that "we" includes the congregation. I could totally see people thinking or believing that if "we" was used. 

I think if an exception can be made, it shows it is a man made rule not an inalterable rule of God. 

As for your reasoning about we, I agree, but I don't think avoiding perception issues would invalidate anything so it has to be more. 

[lauraw4321]

41 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

But I'm still stymied because "we" obviously and innately INCLUDES the priest and therefore Christ if he is indeed acting as persona Christi. The inclusion of others shouldn't limit Christ's ability (or the priests)/power. But I've got way bigger nits to pick, so whatever. 

This was my biggest confusion - We includes I. 

Would any Catholic on this thread be willing to answer my question?  Google has failed me. Do Catholics believe that John the Baptist said specific words during Jesus's baptism? Google confirmed (I think) that the gospels are the same in Catholic / Protestant Bibles.

[forty-two]

1 hour ago, lauraw4321 said:

This was my biggest confusion - We includes I. 

Would any Catholic on this thread be willing to answer my question?  Google has failed me. Do Catholics believe that John the Baptist said specific words during Jesus's baptism? Google confirmed (I think) that the gospels are the same in Catholic / Protestant Bibles.

Not Catholic, but sacramental realist (Lutheran) - fwiw, Lutherans (and I believe Catholics are the same) don't consider Jesus' baptism to be where Christ established the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather Christ's words in the Great Commission: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  So it's not about how John baptized Jesus, but what Jesus commanded His disciples to do.

I was discussing this with my dh (a Lutheran pastor) this morning (it was old news for him - apparently his circles discussed it last year), and he said that he thought it was bad wording which ought to be stopped, but that he didn't think it was enough to make the baptism invalid.  Generally our focus has been on it being a Trinitarian baptism - "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (not Jesus only, or "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", etc.) - and the necessity of both water and Christ's words, to be valid. 

[lauraw4321]

2 minutes ago, forty-two said:

Not Catholic, but sacramental realist (Lutheran) - fwiw, Lutherans (and I believe Catholics are the same) don't consider Jesus' baptism to be where Christ established the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather Christ's words in the Great Commission: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  So it's not about how John baptized Jesus, but what Jesus commanded His disciples to do.

I was discussing this with my dh (a Lutheran pastor) this morning (it was old news for him - apparently his circles discussed it last year), and he said that he thought it was bad wording which ought to be stopped, but that he didn't think it was enough to make the baptism invalid.  Generally our focus has been on it being a Trinitarian baptism - "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (not Jesus only, or "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", etc.) - and the necessity of both water and Christ's words, to be valid. 

Yes, this makes “sense.”  I agree that the words “father and the son and the holy spirit” are the words used when Christ ordained Baptism. (Which doesn’t have a pronoun involved). But that wasn’t what was said earlier in the thread - I’m guessing what was said earlier was error. 

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, lauraw4321 said:

Yes, this makes “sense.”  I agree that the words “father and the son and the holy spirit” are the words used when Christ ordained Baptism. (Which doesn’t have a pronoun involved). But that wasn’t what was said earlier in the thread - I’m guessing what was said earlier was error. 

What was said earlier?  

[Grace Hopper]

21 hours 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?

 

21 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!

It does beg the question though (for me, non practicing Catholic) about the use of “we” in other instances, such as the Royal we, and especially the plurality of the pronoun in Genesis 1:26: Let us make man in our own image, reflecting the trinity. 
 

Not entering a debate, just musing. 

[lauraw4321]

16 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

What was said earlier?  

I wilL never figure out multi quote on my phone. Murphy101 said that John the Baptist didn’t say “we” and that scripture is authoritative. I’m not aware of any traditions what JtB said at the baptism, and his words at the time of the baptism are not in any gospel. 

[lauraw4321]

21 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.

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. 

@Baseballandhockey  This is what confused me. 

[barnwife]

1 hour ago, lauraw4321 said:

This was my biggest confusion - We includes I. 

Would any Catholic on this thread be willing to answer my question?  Google has failed me. Do Catholics believe that John the Baptist said specific words during Jesus's baptism? Google confirmed (I think) that the gospels are the same in Catholic / Protestant Bibles.

All I can do is reiterate my earlier point (in a response to another poster). I have no idea if I am right. 

The use of "we" could be understood as including the congregation/faithful. I am guessing that's why, once upon a time, the RCC decided on the use of "I" in this instance (baptism). They didn't want anyone misunderstanding/believing that the congregation was effecting the baptism. Yes, the Gospels are the same in Catholic and Protestant Bibles. It's the deuterocanonical books that make them different. 


 

[DreamerGirl]

I have been debating posting this thread because I am a deconstructing Anglican. The church of my childhood. As such I am much familiar the importance of sacraments and the meanings of words in those sacraments. Those words are not just words to the faithful but promises they take in front of God and have meaning to their daily life.

So I do get how people feel about the I/we and how much it matters in the context of someone who is deeply religious. I myself, in my former life  pored over the words of the wedding vows because they held deep meaning as I believed those were vows in front of God. They were not just words to me.

But I also had to battle to change them so that they were acceptable to who I was while being faithful to the church format of vows (no obey/submit). During that time I remember feeling very devalued as a woman and a person. I was basically told, this is tradition take it or leave it. There was no wiggle room. If not for a sympathetic pastor who knew me my whole life and said it was ok to change the vows while still following the majority of the format I would not have got married in that church, where my family have worshipped and held marriages for generations. I would have been heart broken if someone told me my marriage was invalid today because I changed a few words in the vows even after walking away.

Also, if we are talking about words and their meanings where was this zealousness when children of the church were being hurt ?  What about the words of Jesus Christ himself like people who were causing harm to children being drowned in sea by hanging a large millstone around their neck. Why does the words of people like John the Baptist or St.Paul have more value or meaning than Jesus himself ? Is it a coincidence that these all relate to man made laws and sacraments ?

Churches as much as they presume speak for God, do not. This is being legalistic however you want to spin it. 

Those who have the honor of standing in person as a conduit for God have a moral responsibility. It means not being dogmatic. It means acting in the interest of the people, not the church. It does not mean beating people with rules and laws. Mistakes happen. 

If half this zealousness was applied when the church knew children were being hurt, so many lives would be better today. 

 

 

[scholastica]

22 hours ago, Terabith said:

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.  

That's really not how things work in the Vatican at all. A question came up and was put to the office responsible and they answered it. If nothing had been going on with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, they would have answered it now, as well. Also once he became pope, his name became Pope Benedict XVI, there is no such person as Pope Ratzinger. 

[Murphy101]

7 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

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

I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean to leave you hanging. I had a phone mishap that cleared my phone and then I could not remember my blasted WTM password.

Anyhoo.

No, I wasn’t saying the JtB said “I”, my point was that it’s not like we have nothing at all to base sacramental practices on.  We do have the gospel and we do have Tradition and we do have the understanding that words are powerful and matter.  It’s not based on just the random whim of some guy.  A priest has some serious hubris to decide to use different words.

Now I’m going to try to go back and read missed posts between getting kids to ice skating and dinner.

Also, I do not have my acct set up to notify me of replies, but it will send an email if someone messages me. So unless I actually visit the board, I won’t see other notifications. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, DreamerGirl said:

I have been debating posting this thread because I am a deconstructing Anglican. The church of my childhood. As such I am much familiar the importance of sacraments and the meanings of words in those sacraments. Those words are not just words to the faithful but promises they take in front of God and have meaning to their daily life.

So I do get how people feel about the I/we and how much it matters in the context of someone who is deeply religious. I myself, in my former life  pored over the words of the wedding vows because they held deep meaning as I believed those were vows in front of God. They were not just words to me.

But I also had to battle to change them so that they were acceptable to who I was while being faithful to the church format of vows (no obey/submit). During that time I remember feeling very devalued as a woman and a person. I was basically told, this is tradition take it or leave it. There was no wiggle room. If not for a sympathetic pastor who knew me my whole life and said it was ok to change the vows while still following the majority of the format I would not have got married in that church, where my family have worshipped and held marriages for generations. I would have been heart broken if someone told me my marriage was invalid today because I changed a few words in the vows even after walking away.

Also, if we are talking about words and their meanings where was this zealousness when children of the church were being hurt ?  What about the words of Jesus Christ himself like people who were causing harm to children being drowned in sea by hanging a large millstone around their neck. Why does the words of people like John the Baptist or St.Paul have more value or meaning than Jesus himself ? Is it a coincidence that these all relate to man made laws and sacraments ?

Churches as much as they presume speak for God, do not. This is being legalistic however you want to spin it. 

Those who have the honor of standing in person as a conduit for God have a moral responsibility. It means not being dogmatic. It means acting in the interest of the people, not the church. It does not mean beating people with rules and laws. Mistakes happen. 

If half this zealousness was applied when the church knew children were being hurt, so many lives would be better today. 

You lost me when you went off the rail of the topic. 

It’s entirely possible to feel just as or more strongly about child abuse.  That obviously some people didn’t about either is nothing new or exclusive to Catholics. And has no bearing in the current responses beyond being a perpetual caution to not let ourselves relax in vigilance of carrying out our sacred duties.

[DreamerGirl]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

You lost me when you went off the rail of the topic

For me, the benchmark of anything Christian always starts with the words of Christ. It stands above all.  The tradition, liturgy, history of any Church for they are all manmade. Does not matter if they are thousands of years old. 

Anything the church does will always be judged by me against the words of Christ. The RCC failed one of the fundamental words of Christ. So when they fuss around over words and make by all accounts a good priest resign, you have to ask where are the priorities. 

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

It’s entirely possible to feel just as or more strongly about child abuse.  That obviously some people didn’t about either is nothing new or exclusive to Catholics. And has no bearing in the current responses beyond being a perpetual caution to not let ourselves relax in vigilance of carrying out our sacred duties.

What duties are they ? The priest carried out his duties. By all accounts. By his former parishioners.

Christ also teaches grace. Instead of applying that, the church decides to be dogmatic about tradition and jeopardizes people's baptism, marriage. As a former person of faith who deeply values even now the sacrament of a covenant marriage, it would absolutely devastate me if my marriage was invalid because of a few words. What about the children born in those marriages ? So many believe children should be born within wedlock and make a conscious choice. So much heartache and pain because the church is dogmatic. 

So much vigilance over tradition and dogma. Yet so much apathy and coverup over children being hurt. These two are not independent of each other for me. YMMV.

[Dmmetler]

23 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.  

That was my thought as well. I am not kidding that if my mother were told, right now, that her baptism, or anything stemming from that, or her marriage was invalid....I think it would kill her. As it is, not being able to take communion, even if a chaplain is available, is really hard on her, and she's stated that she doesn't mind having a feeding tube, as long as she gets to the point she can take communion again. This isn't a small thing or a clerical error. It is literally telling the faithful that a major part of their life isn't valid. 

[Drama Llama]

3 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

That was my thought as well. I am not kidding that if my mother were told, right now, that her baptism, or anything stemming from that, or her marriage was invalid....I think it would kill her. As it is, not being able to take communion, even if a chaplain is available, is really hard on her, and she's stated that she doesn't mind having a feeding tube, as long as she gets to the point she can take communion again. This isn't a small thing or a clerical error. It is literally telling the faithful that a major part of their life isn't valid. 

Is she Catholic?

The Catholic church teaching is that the whole of Jesus is present in the tiniest speck of the eucharist.  When it was hard for DS to take an entire host, he literally took a tiny speck.  The priest would hand it to me, and I'd break off a piece and consume the rest.  

 

[Murphy101]

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

The RCC failed one of the fundamental words of Christ.

Which exact words do you refer to?

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

So when they fuss around over words and make by all accounts a good priest resign, you have to ask where are the priorities. 
 

He was not. He may have been nice but he was not good if he failed to properly do his duty. Resigning is something he should have done long before. 

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

What duties are they ? The priest carried out his duties. By all accounts. By his former parishioners.

No, he did not.  He failed in at least 2 of the 5 requirements of a sacrament. A proper minister and a proper form. 

You do not have to agree with the RCC, but you also don’t get to decide the rituals of the RCC. 

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

Christ also teaches grace. Instead of applying that, the church decides to be dogmatic about tradition and jeopardizes people's baptism, marriage. As a former person of faith who deeply values even now the sacrament of a covenant marriage, it would absolutely devastate me if my marriage was invalid because of a few words.

I know my children are my children and my husband is my husband.  I know this regardless of the certificates of birth, baptism or marriage. But I also know those things are important, for both religious reasons and secular reasons.

If through no fault of my own it came to my knowledge that any of those forms were somehow missing an element that makes them valid - I would be irritated and frustrated and maybe even terribly worried pending circumstances.  But I would absolutely go out of my way to make it right asap. Being angry that other humans messed up won’t make that any easier.

And none of that means that Christ’s grace is removed.  It means I should take steps to strengthen His grace in our lives. 

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

What about the children born in those marriages ? So many believe children should be born within wedlock and make a conscious choice. So much heartache and pain because the church is dogmatic. 

Conscious choice about what? What about those children? I’d hope they’d keep them? This makes no sense. 

18 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

So much vigilance over tradition and dogma. Yet so much apathy and coverup over children being hurt. These two are not independent of each other for me. YMMV.

There is no either or scenario to this. I am apathetic to that false dichotomy.

[Murphy101]

34 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

That was my thought as well. I am not kidding that if my mother were told, right now, that her baptism, or anything stemming from that, or her marriage was invalid....I think it would kill her. As it is, not being able to take communion, even if a chaplain is available, is really hard on her, and she's stated that she doesn't mind having a feeding tube, as long as she gets to the point she can take communion again. This isn't a small thing or a clerical error. It is literally telling the faithful that a major part of their life isn't valid. 

I think there’s a lot of horror over the wording because invalid does indeed sound scary.  Maybe it’s because I’m a convert but I don’t see it that way.  I’d be really angry at this priest. I wonder how the diocese is handling this to correct it?  We really do not know.  I think that is important to know.

Illegitimate children are a non issue.  I could get my marriage annulled and it still wouldn’t make my children illegitimate. Literally nothing on record or off record would change for my children within the RCC if my marriage was deemed invalid.  For ME? Yes. For my Dh? Yes. But not for our kids. 

[Terabith]

I think the biggest worry is not for the people who can "redo" the sacraments and make them right.  It's for the loved ones of people who have died with baptisms that might be invalid or whose absolutions were possibly invalid because the priest who granted absolution was not a priest and then the person died.  

Some things you cannot fix.  

[lauraw4321]

17 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Which exact words do you refer to?

Matt. 18:6-7

I’m just guessing. 

[Drama Llama]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think the biggest worry is not for the people who can "redo" the sacraments and make them right.  It's for the loved ones of people who have died with baptisms that might be invalid or whose absolutions were possibly invalid because the priest who granted absolution was not a priest and then the person died.  

Some things you cannot fix.  

I also have seen the pain that some of my deeply religious loved ones have suffered due to be denied the eucharist during covid.  Asking people to not receive, especially people who are vulnerable like my son, or Dmmetler's mother is cruel.  To imply that God would endorse that cruelty, it's the kind of thing that makes people leave the church.  

[scholastica]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think the biggest worry is not for the people who can "redo" the sacraments and make them right.  It's for the loved ones of people who have died with baptisms that might be invalid or whose absolutions were possibly invalid because the priest who granted absolution was not a priest and then the person died.  

Some things you cannot fix.  

God’s name is Mercy. I don’t think for a minute that he would damn someone for an action that was not their fault. An important concept that is being lost here is that the sacraments are presumed valid until proven they were not. If everyone involved was acting in good faith at the time, I’m sure God will be merciful. Now that an error has been discovered, they will do everything they can to rectify the situation for those who need it. Yes, it’s disturbing and sad for those involved, but also not the end of the world. Im sure God still showered Grace on those following him the best they could. It’s not like He doesn’t know what happened.

[TravelingChris]

iN MYCHURCHES,  WE ALSWAYS USE THE i BAPTISE, NOT WE.    What the congregation does do is promise to support the child. 

[Murphy101]

8 hours ago, Terabith said:

I think the biggest worry is not for the people who can "redo" the sacraments and make them right.  It's for the loved ones of people who have died with baptisms that might be invalid or whose absolutions were possibly invalid because the priest who granted absolution was not a priest and then the person died.  

Some things you cannot fix.  

But what about the thief crucified with Christ?  He wasn’t at the last supper either. The sacraments are miraculous and an important gift of Christ’s grace, but His grace is not limits only to them. 

8 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I also have seen the pain that some of my deeply religious loved ones have suffered due to be denied the eucharist during covid.  Asking people to not receive, especially people who are vulnerable like my son, or Dmmetler's mother is cruel.  To imply that God would endorse that cruelty, it's the kind of thing that makes people leave the church.  

What do you mean by not receiving? For most of history and still in places being able to receive Eucharist anytime a person wants was not the norm due to just life being hard and priests can’t be everywhere.  But it’s never been suggested that those souls are in danger bc of that.  I personally do not know of any priest who stopped giving the Eucharist at any point during covid. They may have not done it at masses for a brief time, but they were still going to the hospitals, nursing homes and visiting the sick.

[Dmmetler]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

But what about the thief crucified with Christ?  He wasn’t at the last supper either. The sacraments are miraculous and an important gift of Christ’s grace, but His grace is not limits only to them. 

What do you mean by not receiving? For most of history and still in places being able to receive Eucharist anytime a person wants was not the norm due to just life being hard and priests can’t be everywhere.  But it’s never been suggested that those souls are in danger bc of that.  I personally do not know of any priest who stopped giving the Eucharist at any point during covid. They may have not done it at masses for a brief time, but they were still going to the hospitals, nursing homes and visiting the sick.

Restrictions during a COVID surge, particularly for vulnerable patients, are no joke. Which means that the hospital chaplain ends up spread pretty thin, because the patients can't have their local pastor visit-if they are critical enough to have visitation allowed at all, it's one person a day. If they're not critical, it's no one at all. We're in the intermediate stage now where one visitor a day is allowed, but it's still not as flexible as it would have been at this time in 2020-or last summer. 

 

 

 

 

[lauraw4321]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

But what about the thief crucified with Christ?  He wasn’t at the last supper either. The sacraments are miraculous and an important gift of Christ’s grace, but His grace is not limits only to them. 

What do you mean by not receiving? For most of history and still in places being able to receive Eucharist anytime a person wants was not the norm due to just life being hard and priests can’t be everywhere.  But it’s never been suggested that those souls are in danger bc of that.  I personally do not know of any priest who stopped giving the Eucharist at any point during covid. They may have not done it at masses for a brief time, but they were still going to the hospitals, nursing homes and visiting the sick.

The FAQ you linked to specifically warned those baptized by that priest to not take communion until they are baptized. I can see that causing spiritual harm.

[Murphy101]

51 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Restrictions during a COVID surge, particularly for vulnerable patients, are no joke. Which means that the hospital chaplain ends up spread pretty thin, because the patients can't have their local pastor visit-if they are critical enough to have visitation allowed at all, it's one person a day. If they're not critical, it's no one at all. We're in the intermediate stage now where one visitor a day is allowed, but it's still not as flexible as it would have been at this time in 2020-or last summer. 

That was not how any Catholic priest I’m aware of handled things. They have always been spread thin and covid hasn’t helped, that’s true, but no priests that I’m aware of with the ability to give last rites has ever done so. All the priests I know are extremely exhausted from working themselves to the bone to serve under unusual conditions. The restrictions were not from the RCC and every priest I know has worked really hard to serve their parishes as best they can. The rest is in God’s hands bc that’s all any human can do. 

15 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

The FAQ you linked to specifically warned those baptized by that priest to not take communion until they are baptized. I can see that causing spiritual harm.

Only if they don’t get baptized asap or are in mortal sin. And if I’m mortal sin, they need to fix that anyways.  There’s many situations where a Catholic is well advised to abstain from partaking in the Eucharist. 

[Dmmetler]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

That was not how any Catholic priest I’m aware of handled things. They have always been spread thin and covid hasn’t helped, that’s true, but no priests that I’m aware of with the ability to give last rites has ever done so. All the priests I know are extremely exhausted from working themselves to the bone to serve under unusual conditions. The restrictions were not from the RCC and every priest I know has worked really hard to serve their parishes as best they can. The rest is in God’s hands bc that’s all any human can do. 

Only if they don’t get baptized asap or are in mortal sin. And if I’m mortal sin, they need to fix that anyways.  There’s many situations where a Catholic is well advised to abstain from partaking in the Eucharist. 

It's not how the priest handles things. It's that the hospitals literally are not letting outside people in at all, or are limiting to family. Period.  So, you can put in a request for pastoral care, but it is kind of like waiting for a non-urgent surgery. Unless you are on the verge of immediate death, you're probably not getting it terribly quickly. Not that they don't want to, that there literally are so many people dying that they can't do much else.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I think there’s a lot of horror over the wording because invalid does indeed sound scary.  Maybe it’s because I’m a convert but I don’t see it that way.  I’d be really angry at this priest. I wonder how the diocese is handling this to correct it?  We really do not know.  I think that is important to know.

Illegitimate children are a non issue.  I could get my marriage annulled and it still wouldn’t make my children illegitimate. Literally nothing on record or off record would change for my children within the RCC if my marriage was deemed invalid.  For ME? Yes. For my Dh? Yes. But not for our kids. 

Yes! Even with all my conflicting feelings about the RCC, I really get annoyed when people think that the church considers any child "illegitimate". That's a secular, legal idea, NOT one from the RCC. (when my first marriage was annulled I got ALL sorts of crap aimed at me over this so it is  pet peeve of mine. Children are blessings, period, end stop.)

2 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

The FAQ you linked to specifically warned those baptized by that priest to not take communion until they are baptized. I can see that causing spiritual harm.

Honestly, there really are a lot of times people who are devout Catholics cannot or do not take communion, and if someone were truly grieving and for their own emotional and spiritual help needed communion ASAP I'm sure they could get a priest to quickly baptize them. If they are that devout, and attend Mass weekly etc the priest will know them and handle it. Takes 10 minutes or less. I disagree with the decision to say that the baptisms are invalid, but I also know this will be corrected ASAP. 

And also know that the presumption is that God can of course work outside the sacraments, and even through our mistakes, and that it will be presumed people's souls are just fine, but hey, lets fix the paperwork to make sure we do everything we can on our end, etc. 

[Faith-manor]

3 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

Restrictions during a COVID surge, particularly for vulnerable patients, are no joke. Which means that the hospital chaplain ends up spread pretty thin, because the patients can't have their local pastor visit-if they are critical enough to have visitation allowed at all, it's one person a day. If they're not critical, it's no one at all. We're in the intermediate stage now where one visitor a day is allowed, but it's still not as flexible as it would have been at this time in 2020-or last summer. 

 

 

 

 

And in our area, none of the hospital chaplains are Catholic or Orthodox priests. Other clergy have not been allowed into hospitals when covid restrictions on visitors are in place, same for nursing homes. So for folks of Catholic faith, that has been really tough. At the hospital most patients here are turfed to there are only two chaplains, one is Presbyterian, and one is UCC. 

As you all know, I deconverted from Christianity. I just happen to have some former neighbors who are Catholic and very, very sad about this so I have been lurking. I don't know what to say that would be of comfort to them. They have no association with this priest, PHEW, but just a general sadness about the situation. 

Anyway, it is a very interesting discussion, and I will go back to lurking.

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Yes! Even with all my conflicting feelings about the RCC, I really get annoyed when people think that the church considers any child "illegitimate". That's a secular, legal idea, NOT one from the RCC. (when my first marriage was annulled I got ALL sorts of crap aimed at me over this so it is  pet peeve of mine. Children are blessings, period, end stop.)

Honestly, there really are a lot of times people who are devout Catholics cannot or do not take communion, and if someone were truly grieving and for their own emotional and spiritual help needed communion ASAP I'm sure they could get a priest to quickly baptize them. If they are that devout, and attend Mass weekly etc the priest will know them and handle it. Takes 10 minutes or less. I disagree with the decision to say that the baptisms are invalid, but I also know this will be corrected ASAP. 

And also know that the presumption is that God can of course work outside the sacraments, and even through our mistakes, and that it will be presumed people's souls are just fine, but hey, lets fix the paperwork to make sure we do everything we can on our end, etc. 

As someone who spent a lot of time in the pediatric ICU during covid, that doesn't match my experience.  

3 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

It's not how the priest handles things. It's that the hospitals literally are not letting outside people in at all, or are limiting to family. Period.  So, you can put in a request for pastoral care, but it is kind of like waiting for a non-urgent surgery. Unless you are on the verge of immediate death, you're probably not getting it terribly quickly. Not that they don't want to, that there literally are so many people dying that they can't do much else.  

This does match my experience. 

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

That was not how any Catholic priest I’m aware of handled things. They have always been spread thin and covid hasn’t helped, that’s true, but no priests that I’m aware of with the ability to give last rites has ever done so. All the priests I know are extremely exhausted from working themselves to the bone to serve under unusual conditions. The restrictions were not from the RCC and every priest I know has worked really hard to serve their parishes as best they can. The rest is in God’s hands bc that’s all any human can do. 

Only if they don’t get baptized asap or are in mortal sin. And if I’m mortal sin, they need to fix that anyways.  There’s many situations where a Catholic is well advised to abstain from partaking in the Eucharist. 

For my child who was in the hospital during covid, there were no in person clergy visits.  Because he was under 18, either DH or I could be with him, with no more than one switch in a 24 hour period, but that was it.  If he'd been over 18 we wouldn't have had that.  I think it's possible that if we'd known when he was going to die, we could have had someone there at that time to administer last rights, we might have been able to have me there too.  But, like many children, his death was sudden and without warning.  

For my elderly family members who were sheltering at home, there was a long period of time our diocese was not doing home visits or home communion.  Perhaps if someone was very ill, but not for people who were simply old.  

[Terabith]

I could totally have seen these baptisms being ruled illicit but not invalid.  That seems like it would have both honored the fact that the wording was not correct (and I do understand how important that is, and I think removal of this priest is almost certainly appropriate) and would have honored the experiences of the people who received baptism (and subsequently other sacraments) in good faith.  

I think that would have been the gracious thing to do.

[Dmmetler]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

And in our area, none of the hospital chaplains are Catholic or Orthodox priests. Other clergy have not been allowed into hospitals when covid restrictions on visitors are in place, same for nursing homes. So for folks of Catholic faith, that has been really tough. At the hospital most patients here are turfed to there are only two chaplains, one is Presbyterian, and one is UCC. 

As you all know, I deconverted from Christianity. I just happen to have some former neighbors who are Catholic and very, very sad about this so I have been lurking. I don't know what to say that would be of comfort to them. They have no association with this priest, PHEW, but just a general sadness about the situation. 

Anyway, it is a very interesting discussion, and I will go back to lurking.

That is the case here, too-except for the Catholic hospital. A lot of the chaplains here are UMC or Presbyterian (The chaplain at the Baptist women’s hospital is UMC-although that could be because having a female pastor makes sense, and therefore you have to go to a denomination that ordains women). 
 

Honestly, my statement all the way through has been “just get someone in to pray with her”. I don’t care what denomination. Or whether they’re ordained. And indeed, there have been a few who have been willing to sit with her, help her find the local Christian radio and TV stations, read the Bible to her, etc-usually nurses and nurse’s aides on the night shift because my mom tends to wake up very, very early, and it’s usually quiet enough that they can do so. 

[DreamerGirl]

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Which exact words do you refer to?

The ones of Christ regarding children.

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

He was not. He may have been nice but he was not good if he failed to properly do his duty. Resigning is something he should have done long before. 

No, he did not.  He failed in at least 2 of the 5 requirements of a sacrament. A proper minister and a proper form. 

You do not have to agree with the RCC, but you also don’t get to decide the rituals of the RCC. 

I do not get to decide the rituals of the RCC.

I can also see this man was a good priest to the people but failed in his wording of sacraments

https://abc13.com/arizona-baptisms-invalid-priest-baptism-catholic-church-andres-arango/11573660/

I can also see the RCC which excused pedophile priests and knowingly sent them to congregations. No one made them resign. I suppose they were all good at their jobs and used the correct words for sacraments. They were good priests. Who cares if they molest a few thousand children ? As long as they say the words of the sacrament who cares about conduct and character ? 

One can also become a former Pope and ask for forgiveness eh former Cardinal Ratzinger ?

The church of Christ is the people. Not a building. Not a set of traditions, liturgy, pomp and splendor or a huge building filled with beautiful art and sculpture. It was started by a man who hung naked on a cross, who walked all the way, had bad hygiene by today's standards. He did not wear a crown of gold, but of thorns. The church and religion that bears his name should be about people, not tradition and controlling people. This is why people walk away. Because the Church of Christ bares no resemblance to his teachings but is rigid and dogma bound and quick to defend it's traditions but will not protect it's children.

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I know my children are my children and my husband is my husband.  I know this regardless of the certificates of birth, baptism or marriage. But I also know those things are important, for both religious reasons and secular reasons.

When I was religious, what made me feel married was the vows and the sacrament of marriage. Not the certificate. 

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

If through no fault of my own it came to my knowledge that any of those forms were somehow missing an element that makes them valid - I would be irritated and frustrated and maybe even terribly worried pending circumstances.  But I would absolutely go out of my way to make it right asap. Being angry that other humans messed up won’t make that any easier.

So let us assume the marriage issue is fixable, so is baptism and confirmation. No one should get mad at that. We should all be reasonable. Mistakes happen. We should forgive. So what about last rites then ? Or does that not matter that these people are dead ? 

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

And none of that means that Christ’s grace is removed.  It means I should take steps to strengthen His grace in our lives. 

Why is Christ's grace not applied in this situation ? The church is being stubborn, bullheaded about words. When they hid terrible actions for decades. Why has this priest faced consequences but not the molesting priests ? Because what he did affected the church's tradition while the molesting priests affected the congregation ? So tradition over people like always. 

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Conscious choice about what? What about those children? I’d hope they’d keep them? This makes no sense

In many countries where the RCC holds sway that women cannot even have abortions in the case of a miscarriage (Ireland before it became legal) and are slut shamed for having children without the sacrament of marriage.

As far as I know, some marriages may need to be performed again. So what is the status of the children born to a mother and father whose marriage is invalid in that case ? Would they be "illegitimate" ?

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Please disregard----

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

There is no either or scenario to this. I am apathetic to that false dichotomy.

No, it is very clear the RCC places high value over words than actions. Traditions over people. Will fire a priest over words and invalidate entire sacraments but will not fire priests over molestations. And will promote priests who knew to the highest office of the Pope like the former Cardinal Ratzinger.

[MercyA]

I love you, DreamerGal, but I think you probably should not be attacking specific denominations on the Chat Board. 

There is no perfect church. They are all made up of human beings. 

[Frances]

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I love you, DreamerGal, but I think you probably should not be attacking specific denominations on the Chat Board. 

There is no perfect church. They are all made up of human beings. 

I have mixed feelings. Over on the Duggar thread, people aren’t hesitating to attack their brand of Christianity. Now maybe some would say it’s actually a cult, so it’s a different. But I’m sure there are people on this board whose denominations or local church they attend are quite similar. We’ve certainly also discussed, and sometimes attacked, other denominations when they are in the news for something bad.

I certainly agree that no church is perfect and they are made up of humans. But many also believe they were inspired by God and they try to defend those things they believe are divinely inspired. So I do think it’s natural for those of us who believe differently (and maybe especially those of us who used to share the beliefs or saw others in our country profoundly affected by the Church) push back and question the lack of consistency.

Personally, I don’t think religious beliefs are any more exempt from discussion and questioning than any other beliefs.

[Murphy101]

30 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

The ones of Christ regarding children.

I do not get to decide the rituals of the RCC.

I can also see this man was a good priest to the people but failed

This is where the buck stopped.

You can’t have it both ways either the Church is the people United in common belief, some who are better at living and practicing that belief than others.  Or the Church is not the people.

Again, bad apples aren’t new or exclusive to the RCC and have little to do with THIS topic beyond a reminder that we should be vigilant. 

30 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

I can also see the RCC which excused pedophile priests and knowingly sent them to congregations. No one made them resign. I suppose they were all good at their jobs and used the correct words for sacraments. They were good priests. Who cares if they molest a few thousand children ? As long as they say the words of the sacrament who cares about conduct and character ? 

well that’s a load of off topic BS that no one other than you are even suggesting.  

30 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

 So what about last rites then ? Or does that not matter that these people are dead ? 
 

What of them? For one thing, you do not have to already be baptized or even Catholic to have last rites if you want them. *sigh*

30 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

So what is the status of the children born to a mother and father whose marriage is invalid in that case ? Would they be "illegitimate" ?

no bc there are no illegitimate children in the RCC.

I get it. You have got issues with the RCC. Issues that have nothing to with this topic or even reflect the reality of past scandals. But I’m not much interested in ranting with you about it.

[MercyA]

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

Personally, I don’t think religious beliefs are any more exempt from discussion and questioning than any other beliefs.

I agree, and I really enjoy the religious discussions here. Questions are good and never to be feared or avoided. But I do think some of the posts in this thread veer into breaking the board rule:

"Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style."

Probably this is a somewhat subjective judgment on my part. 

I'm not and have never been Catholic, so I don't think I'm taking it personally. 

I think there is a difference between saying, "X denomination seems to be inconsistent here" and "X denomination is stubborn, failed, apathetic, dogmatic, and clearly places higher value on words than action."

Edited February 18, 2022 by MercyA

[Murphy101]

8 minutes ago, Frances said:

I have mixed feelings. Over on the Duggar thread, people aren’t hesitating to attack their brand of Christianity. Now maybe some would say it’s actually a cult, so it’s a different. But I’m sure there are people on this board whose denominations or local church they attend are quite similar. We’ve certainly also discussed, and sometimes attacked, other denominations when they are in the news for something bad.

I certainly agree that no church is perfect and they are made up of humans. But many also believe they were inspired by God and they try to defend those things they believe are divinely inspired. So I do think it’s natural for those of us who believe differently (and maybe especially those of us who used to share the beliefs or saw others in our country profoundly affected by the Church) push back and question the lack of consistency.

Personally, I don’t think religious beliefs are any more exempt from discussion and questioning than any other beliefs.

I don’t mind discussion.  I’m not much interested in being attacked with completely off topic diatribes.

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I agree, and I really enjoy the religious discussions here. Questions are good and never to be feared or avoided. But I do think some of the posts in this thread veer into breaking the board rule:

"Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style."

Probably this is a somewhat subjective judgment on my part. 

I'm not and have never been Catholic, so I don't think I'm taking it personally. 

 

I agree it’s likely subjective and not black and white. Even within Catholicism, there is a great deal of disagreement among believers, even when the Church has only one teaching on a matter. So I can see how a Catholic who agrees with most or all of the churches teachings might feel more bothered or attacked by a post like @DreamerGirl’s, while other Catholics might actually agree with some or all of what she wrote.

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t mind discussion.  I’m not much interested in being attacked with completely off topic diatribes.

While I can see how you might have felt attacked, I think she was attacking the church, not you personally or all Catholics.

And while I don’t completely agree with her, pointing out perceived inconsistencies is often part of debates on this board.

[Murphy101]

17 minutes ago, Frances said:

While I can see how you might have felt attacked, I think she was attacking the church, not you personally or all Catholics.

And while I don’t completely agree with her, pointing out perceived inconsistencies is often part of debates on this board.

But she didn’t point them out.

She claims the church is made of people but then rants about things “The Church” has done as though it isn’t comprised of people making choices.  I mean is she ticked the church is demanding accountability or not?  Is she suggesting that because bad things happened in the past we should just drop the bar entirely and not bother anymore? To be a good priest would mean to do the duties of his office accurately and with due diligence and reverence - it appears he failed at this.   Maybe he is a nice guy but that’s not enough to be a good anything, including a priest. 

[DreamerGirl]

I am sorry @Murphy101. It was not my intention to attack you. 

I came across a little strong because something about this hits a little closer than it probably should. I always look at Christianity through the lens of my country of origin because that is where most of my experience is.

In my country of origin, we do not differentiate between Catholic and Protestant. All are christian because we are less than 5%.

There are huge basicallas but many of the Churches are small and priests there are barely educated. There are uneducated people who cannot read the word of the Bible, but who are so faithful. Who knows what language they use to baptize people.

There are secret christians even now who will be murdered because they convert. Yet they are baptized secretly. If words about sacrament are so important than the act that it is invalidated what about all these people.

I still by what I said about the RCC. There are so many things which are happening in my country of origin and the church does nothing. Yet, the church does this to a faithful priest because of a few words. Faith is a choice. A belief in the goodness of an unknown God which is demonstrated chiefly by his church on earth. This does not demonstrate Christ or his teachings to me. 

Again, I am sorry @Murphy101. I am sorry my words hurt you. I will now bow from this thread. 

[barnwife]

So I emailed our (RCC) priest about this story. He's fairly new to our parish (he was assigned to our parish during the pandemic), so I don't know him super well. But he seems like a fairly neutral priest, neither super conservative nor super liberal. 

He seems baffled by the CDF's ruling (that's the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). He points out that the priest was actually using a formula that is valid in many of the other 23 Catholic churches (friendly reminder that Roman Catholics aren't the only Catholics). He also reminded me about ex opere operato. St. Augustine wrote about it, and it's basically all about how Sacraments give grace just by being done, and are not based on the perfection of the minister, the recipients, the words, or the stuff used.

However, he also talked about how the most recent Codes of Canon Law are pretty obsessed with "form" (words) and "matter" (stuff) being "correct.".  So if a Baptism is deemed invalid, it invalidates any other sacraments that followed. 

Just thought I'd add some thoughts from a current RCC priest for anyone who is interested.