Fort Worth Bishop Olson apologizes for ‘horrible effects’ of invalid baptisms

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest

“His invalid Baptism had horrible effects on the lives of those who thought that they were validly receiving sacraments administered by a man whom they thought to be a priest, and who thought himself to be a priest, but was in fact neither a priest nor even a Catholic,” Olson wrote.

It was the deacon’s “regular practice to use a substituted and invalid formula in the hundreds of baptisms he is believed to have administered

“The bishop reminded Catholics of the valid formula for baptism: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.’… No other words can be used. No other words can be added,” the bishop added.”
 
Last edited:
Yep, there’s another case of a priest (not Detroit) invalidly baptized by a deacon. Like the priest in Detroit, had to be Baptized, Eucharist, Confirmation, Transitional Deacon, Priest. So sad.
 
Wow, I thank God I got baptized in the good ol’ days of the 1950s before such abuses took place. Pre video culture, though, one wonders at all sorts of violations that could have occurred in places…
 
Could you imagine if we ever find that a Bishop was invalidly Baptized? What an absolute mess that would be trying to clean that up.
 
I agree, I was not baptized in the 50s but was baptized early enough in the 60s that the V2 reforms had not set in, and the priests at the parish would have still been baptizing in Latin.

If I’d been baptized in the 70s instead by one of the younger priests or heaven forbid the deacon we had then (who later quit the diaconate because he was upset that he couldn’t get remarried after his wife passed away), I would probably worry a bit.
 
Limoncello4021 said:
Wow, I thank God I got baptized in the good ol’ days of the 1950s before such abuses took place. Pre video culture, though, one wonders at all sorts of violations that could have occurred in places…
Click to expand...
Heh heh heh. The Missal of 1962 has extensive rubrics and warnings in it. Those rules are alllll there because many priests and bishops brazenly broke them. There was all kinds of liturgical abuse in the past.
 
Last edited:
“The bishop reminded Catholics of the valid formula for baptism: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.’… No other words can be used. No other words can be added,” the bishop added.”
[/quote]
What about “The servant of God is baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” . A totally valid formula, though illicit in the Western Church
 
Angannas said:
“The bishop reminded Catholics of the valid formula for baptism: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.’… No other words can be used. No other words can be added,” the bishop added.”
Click to expand...
What about “The servant of God is baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” . A totally valid formula, though illicit in the Western Church
Click to expand...
Well, he’s a Latin Church bishop, so why would he confuse the faithful with something that doesn’t concern any of them?
 
Last edited:
Oh dear. Well, I know that no one much liked the priest who baptized me because he was an austere, unsmiling, strict man, kind of a hell and brimstone priest, so I hope this worked in my favor. I guess without videos we all just have to commend ourselves to God’s mercy!
 
You mean before video recording was available’

We have no idea if the priest messed up the Latin he used when Baptizing us.

If this person had not had his Baptism videoed, we wouldn’t see this thread.

Just saying
 
MarkRome said:
Could you imagine if we ever find that a Bishop was invalidly Baptized? What an absolute mess that would be trying to clean that up.
Click to expand...
That’s why at least two Bishops consecrate every new Bishop, and they invite more if they can, to ensure a valid line of succession.

Now, that just handles other Bishops. The sacraments for the people are another thing…
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
That’s why at least two Bishops consecrate every new Bishop
Click to expand...
Do you mean every new priest? I was thinking about if an invalidly Baptized “Bishop” ordained new priests and those would be invalid. Also, Bishops are the ordinary ministers of Confirmation, so I presume those also wouldn’t be valid.
 
Yes, that’s what I said above. We don’t know what happened in in the pre-video dinosaur era.
 
Limoncello4021 said:
I guess without videos we all just have to commend ourselves to God’s mercy!
Click to expand...
That is what we do at Baptism, entrust ourselves to the mercy of God.

Was the right formula used? We do not know, but we trust the Church to remember us and we trust God to be merciful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top