- Apr 14, 2007
- 28,134
- 19,581
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
Priest resigns after 20-year-long semantics error rendering baptisms invalid
- Thread starter Nithavela
- Start date
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
He is still a priest in good standing and he resigned voluntarily.
Upvote
0
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Martinius
Catholic disciple of Jesus
- Jul 2, 2010
- 3,573
- 2,915
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This is the kind of thing that places the Catholic Church in a bad light. Does God really care what exact words are used? Isn't the intent what is most important? The Church says the "I" refers to God acting through the priest; one could assume the same from the word "we".
I assume that some of the people that this priest baptized have died. So are they denied eternal salvation because of the priest's error? Are the other sacraments, like Confirmation which follows baptism, also invalid since they would be out of the proper order? If an invalidly baptized person married would that marriage now be, in essence, annulled, forcing the couple to get re-married in the Church after the person was properly baptized? What if one of the improperly baptized was ordained as a priest? Would that ordination now be invalid and all his sacraments declared invalid because he would not be a baptized Catholic?
The inanity of this just goes on and on. Lord, let us not get buried in pompous legalisms.
I assume that some of the people that this priest baptized have died. So are they denied eternal salvation because of the priest's error? Are the other sacraments, like Confirmation which follows baptism, also invalid since they would be out of the proper order? If an invalidly baptized person married would that marriage now be, in essence, annulled, forcing the couple to get re-married in the Church after the person was properly baptized? What if one of the improperly baptized was ordained as a priest? Would that ordination now be invalid and all his sacraments declared invalid because he would not be a baptized Catholic?
The inanity of this just goes on and on. Lord, let us not get buried in pompous legalisms.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2012
- 15,312
- 14,322
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
I suppose thousands of the unbaptised also received Sacraments that are invalid due to them not being baptized.
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2007
- 28,134
- 19,581
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
It goes into further detail in the article. Apparently, those who were baptized need to get re-baptised and then get through all the important sacraments again, like first communion and confirmation.
I just hope they don't have to go to class again.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Making it more difficult for Catholics to understand the CDF’s instruction without catechesis is that the Holy See has itself been inconsistent on the matter.
In 2003, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments wrote to a bishop who had concerns about the “we baptize” formula being used by one of his priests.
“Please be assured that the form that you describe, and in the manner that you describe it, does not cast into doubt the validity of the Baptism conferred…the use of the first person plural does not invalidate the sacrament,” the Congregation explained.
Seventeen years later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said otherwise. Reasonable Catholics have found themselves asking “how could something be valid in 2003, and invalid by 2020? Is all of this legitimate?”
Of course, there are answers to those questions, which explain that the force of a private letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship does not have the same authority as a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, specifically approved and authorized by the pope. The latter must be held by Catholics, while the former is the private opinion of some curial officials.
But the answers to the questions surrounding the “we baptize” affair are complicated. They are an application of nuanced theological principles, not easily reduced to a few sound bytes. And each time the issue of invalid baptisms comes up in the near future, there will likely be a set of practicing Catholics plagued by anxiety, and another set incredulous at what they see as bureaucratic ecclesiastical sophistry.
Those groups might be helped if more diocesan bishops, along with bishops’ conference, and the Holy See, were to take note of the Catholics asking questions, and invest time, money, and personnel in addressing them.
Of course, whatever bishops do, the “we baptize” controversy will eventually fade further from view, and headlines about invalid baptisms and resigning pastors will stop popping up to stir things up.
But without more communication, and a plan for catechesis from the Holy See, the U.S. bishops, or some of the Church’s most gifted catechists, the CDF’s instruction will likely remain an obstacle for some faithful Catholics, and a source of confusion for even more.
Without that catechesis, bishops could find that the long-lasting legacy of the “we baptize” confusion will be an erosion of belief among Catholics: either in the Church’s teaching authority, or in the importance of valid baptism at all.
After 'we baptize' scandal, have 'we' catechized?
In 2003, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments wrote to a bishop who had concerns about the “we baptize” formula being used by one of his priests.
“Please be assured that the form that you describe, and in the manner that you describe it, does not cast into doubt the validity of the Baptism conferred…the use of the first person plural does not invalidate the sacrament,” the Congregation explained.
Seventeen years later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said otherwise. Reasonable Catholics have found themselves asking “how could something be valid in 2003, and invalid by 2020? Is all of this legitimate?”
Of course, there are answers to those questions, which explain that the force of a private letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship does not have the same authority as a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, specifically approved and authorized by the pope. The latter must be held by Catholics, while the former is the private opinion of some curial officials.
But the answers to the questions surrounding the “we baptize” affair are complicated. They are an application of nuanced theological principles, not easily reduced to a few sound bytes. And each time the issue of invalid baptisms comes up in the near future, there will likely be a set of practicing Catholics plagued by anxiety, and another set incredulous at what they see as bureaucratic ecclesiastical sophistry.
Those groups might be helped if more diocesan bishops, along with bishops’ conference, and the Holy See, were to take note of the Catholics asking questions, and invest time, money, and personnel in addressing them.
Of course, whatever bishops do, the “we baptize” controversy will eventually fade further from view, and headlines about invalid baptisms and resigning pastors will stop popping up to stir things up.
But without more communication, and a plan for catechesis from the Holy See, the U.S. bishops, or some of the Church’s most gifted catechists, the CDF’s instruction will likely remain an obstacle for some faithful Catholics, and a source of confusion for even more.
Without that catechesis, bishops could find that the long-lasting legacy of the “we baptize” confusion will be an erosion of belief among Catholics: either in the Church’s teaching authority, or in the importance of valid baptism at all.
After 'we baptize' scandal, have 'we' catechized?
Upvote
0
Jamdoc
Watching and Praying Always
- Oct 22, 2019
- 7,497
- 2,334
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Huh, and it's not the fact that they're doing it to babies who don't know who Jesus is much less believe He died for their sins?
If you're going to be nitpicky, nitpick over the right things
Acts 8
splashing babies and saying some words is just getting the baby wet
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2007
- 28,134
- 19,581
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
It all depends on what you believe in, hmm?
As far as I believe, it's always splashing and getting wet.
Upvote
0
Sketcher
Born Imperishable
Having read through the FAQ, I didn't see a mention of where the church stands on anyone who received these baptisms who died. And if they consider there to be any difference between an infant who was too young to choose it, and an older child or adult who was old enough to choose it.
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2007
- 28,134
- 19,581
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
What the Church Has Said About Children Who Die Without Baptism | EWTN
This isn't the entire point of the article, but it's the part that's making me laugh. You can read the rest yourself.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jamdoc
Watching and Praying Always
- Oct 22, 2019
- 7,497
- 2,334
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
It is ultimately symbolic, it's kind of a public profession in taking part in the burial and resurrection of Jesus. But it does have personal meaning, to one who believes.
But for a baby? They don't even know what it's for, they just know some stranger is pouring water on them and it's uncomfortable.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2015
- 14,603
- 7,108
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Since Christians believe in a Triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is the word 'We' really inaccurate?
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,314
- 3,086
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
There is indeed Baptism by desire, one who wishes to become baptized but was not baptized. What humans on earth can do is to try and do their best to conform with what God gave us. When there are mistakes the best course is to try and correct the mistakes.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 16, 2019
- 20,541
- 17,681
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
Similar threads
