What's in a word?

[Aussie Pete]

US /
baptism
Priest Resigns After 20-Year-Long Semantics Error
Rev. Andres Arango of Phoenix used the word 'we' instead of 'I' in baptisms, rendering all invalid

By Jenn Gidman, Newser Staff
Posted Feb 15, 2022 12:27 PM CST

Stock photo. (Getty Images/Denis Burkin)
(Newser) – If you or any of your children have been baptized in San Diego, Arizona, or Brazil over the past two decades, you might want to check who the presiding pastor was at that purification ceremony. That's because the Rev. Andres Arango, a priest in the Diocese of Phoenix, has now had thousands of baptisms he performed over the past 20 years rendered invalid, leading to his resignation from the church he presides over. The hubbub is all thanks to one word he kept saying wrong over the years during the baptism ritual. The correct way to say the phrase that accompanies the pouring of the holy water during the sacrament, per the Washington Post: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Unfortunately, Arango's version has consistently been "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," a one-word variation that isn't up to snuff with the Catholic Church, and which has now led to some bad news for Arango: He's resigned from his post as pastor of St. Gregory Catholic Church. The bad news for everyone else, per the diocese website: "All of the baptisms he has performed until June 17, 2021, are presumed invalid." The site adds to those affected, "You will need to be baptized" and notes that, "as far as we know," the other sacraments carried out by Arango have been OK.

Diocese officials don't believe Arango acted in bad faith, either in Phoenix or in his previous parishes in California and Brazil. The Post notes that because baptism is the sacrament that "opens the door to others," those who were improperly baptized by Arango may need to first get properly baptized, then do over other sacraments such as confirmation and marriage. The Catholic News Agency notes those thought to have received a botched baptism also shouldn't receive Holy Communion until their status is remedied.

 

[Amittai]

Why is he not in Brazil? Clergy of all people should be seen to stay put.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why is he not in Brazil? Clergy of all people should be seen to stay put.

You will have to ask the pope.

 

[Paidiske]

Why is he not in Brazil? Clergy of all people should be seen to stay put.

I know it's off topic, but I am curious as to why you think so?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The hubbub is all thanks to one word he kept saying wrong over the years during the baptism ritual. The correct way to say the phrase that accompanies the pouring of the holy water during the sacrament, per the Washington Post: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Unfortunately, Arango's version has consistently been "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," a one-word variation that isn't up to snuff with the Catholic Church.

So what do all of you Protestants say?

 

[Amittai]

It may be semi off topic at most: in the RCC it has to be asked why there was a transfer and acceptance. Weird training / supervision combined with transfer and acceptance: three interrelated points already. In the C of E it's totally normal to move about the country, so mobility issues only arise in it if there is faux ecumenism like in Winchester (all I am going to say about non RCC here).

This was a question meant as a question. Not expecting an adverse answer doesn't mean one shouldn't ask it.

On the core issue while it's vital to insist on no innovations in the formula, I think there are a wide range of practical options for those affected depending on the goal.

Marriage doesn't belong to the church; and in the face of international ambiguities each person must objectively decide for themselves how important they think worldwide "communion" is, and what they think it is.

Obviously Brazil and Arizona don't care about the ramifications for those parishioners who wish to take the rest of the sacraments in the light they apparently are told to (if they can make it out).

 

[Amittai]

Protestants say

Good question as it's the shared sacrament among all.

 

[RDKirk]

So what do all of you Protestants say?

Well, a good percentage of Protestants don't accept Catholic baptism in the first place.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, a good percentage of Protestants don't accept Catholic baptism in the first place.

That's up to you guys. Reject away to your heart's content. I'm used to it.

But we ostensibly accept all Protestant baptisms. Not JW baptisms or Mormon baptisms. Also not Oneness Pentecostal baptisms which reject the Trinity. And not fuzzy baptisms in the name of the creator and redeemer and sustainer. But basic baptisms that an old fashioned Lutheran or Baptist would have done. Those we consider good. If you wer baptized with natural water and in the name of the Trinity using an adequate formula of the words we will not rebaptize you because we recognize your baptism.

So, asking again, what do you Protestants say?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good question as it's the shared sacrament among all.

Or at least some of the all.

 

[RDKirk]

But basic baptisms that an old fashioned Lutheran or Baptist would have done. Those we consider good. If you wer baptized with natural water and in the name of the Trinity using an adequate formula of the words we will not rebaptize you because we recognize your baptism.

I haven't read into this particular issue, but I don't understand the inadequacy of having used "we" instead of "I" that it would render those baptisms invalid.

 

[durangodawood]

If some people die un-baptized because of this, are there consequences for them?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So what do all of you Protestants say?

All of us Protestants say many varied and different things. My personal persecutive is that a Preist does not have magical powers and therefore what the Preist does during the Baptismal process is only symbolic and not substantive. Baptism is something that happens between the believer and God. The ceremony is only a symbolic representation of what has occurred substantively, not akin to a pagan magical rite that needs to contain exact wording to be valid. Using we instead of I is irrelevant to whether the Baptism is a Baptism or not because the Preist is not causing the Baptism to be valid, God is.

 

[durangodawood]

....The ceremony is only a symbolic representation of what has occurred substantively, not akin to a pagan magical rite that needs to contain exact wording to be valid.....

For example?

 

[chevyontheriver]

If some people die un-baptized because of this, are there consequences for them?

I suspect God can sort it out. We have to go by what God has told us but if He has an end run around that, it's His business that we have no right to presume on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I haven't read into this particular issue, but I don't understand the inadequacy of having used "we" instead of "I" that it would render those baptisms invalid.

When you read into it a little more, let me know.

 

[RDKirk]

When you read into it a little more, let me know.

Well, you're Catholic and the issue is Catholic...so you tell me why "we" versus "I" makes such a difference to Catholics that the baptism becomes invalid.

I don't believe that word would be an issue for Protestants unless somehow the baptism officiant specifically intended to make an unauthorized doctrinal statement by it.

For instance, there are some who disagree with the wording "...in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and insist that it should be "...in the name of Jesus." That's making a specific doctrinal statement that not all would agree with.

I don't think this priest was intending to make a statement in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine, but I don't understand the difference the Roman Catholic Church makes of it. A Catholic would have to tell me that.

 

[durangodawood]

I suspect God can sort it out. We have to go by what God has told us but if He has an end run around that, it's His business that we have no right to presume on.

What happens to the survivors of people who did die, given their new uncertainty of their loved ones salvation?

Should the church simply declare the baptisms valid rather than people having to suspect there's an divine end run in play?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, you're Catholic and the issue is Catholic...so you tell me why "we" versus "I" makes such a difference to Catholics that the baptism becomes invalid.

I don't believe that word would be an issue for Protestants unless somehow the baptism officiant specifically intended to make an unauthorized doctrinal statement by it.

For instance, there are some who disagree with the wording "...in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and insist that it should be "...in the name of Jesus." That's making a specific doctrinal statement that not all would agree with.

I don't think this priest was intending to make a statement in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine, but I don't understand the difference the Roman Catholic Church makes of it. A Catholic would have to tell me that.

This particular priest was not specifically trying to make a doctrinal statement by what he did. But he did deviate from the authorized words. That is in this matter both illicit and invalid, not merely a rejection of the authorized text for baptism in favor of another adequate text but of being something other than a real baptism. He wasn't trying to make a mess, and when he figured it out he wanted to make amends.

It seems such a tiny deviation to go from the historic first person singular to the first person plural. And yet it is significant in the way homoousios differs from homoiousios. The whole of the council of Nicea was wrapped up in the presence or absence of one tiny letter. Likewise here.

Some things for you to consider, by no means exhaustive:
After 'we baptize' scandal, have 'we' catechized?

Addressing the Validity of Baptisms - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

“Responsum” della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede ad un dubbio sulla validità del Battesimo conferito con la formula “Noi ti battezziamo nel nome del Padre e del Figlio e dello Spirito Santo”

One added thing. In the case of necessity I am, as a plain old Catholic, allowed to baptize. Maybe some day it will happen, but probably not. I would be required to use the words " I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" I would be required to use real water. And I would be required to have the intention of doing a valid baptism. So, really this isn't something that requires clergy at all, although they would be the normal guys to do it. Protestants can do it. An atheist could do it. A Hindu could do it. Water and specific words and intent. Not two of the three, but all three. No more than that needed.

That is my understanding of how historic Protestants did it and which was the norm until only a generation or so ago.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What happens to the survivors of people who did die, given their new uncertainty of their loved ones salvation?

Should the church simply declare the baptisms valid rather than people having to suspect there's an divine end run in play?

The Church can't just declare something valid if there is no basis for it. We do not have the authority to accept alternate baptismal formulae or women priests or milk and cookies for communion. So we either look up and find these people and rebaptize them or God will have to sort it out. God is just and merciful. We trust that. In my opinion far better to have lived a good life with an invalid baptism than to have had a valid baptism and lived a life of debauchery.