I suspect that the Church will be approaching the matter in a fashion similar to marriage: it is presumed valid until shown to not be valid.
I also suspect that there are a huge number of people who will never know that the issue ever cam up with the Vatican, and as most people coming through RCIA are adults and very likely were baptized as babies or children with no recollection of what the minister said (formula-wise).
My own experience as being a team member in RCIA for about 25 years is that the issue of baptism is around the matter of any ecclesial proof (including any family bible which notes the date of baptism) and has been, in my fairly limited experience (there are/were 17,000 +/- parishes in the US - I was involved with one of them) something we did not confront once per year as an average. , In fact, I can only recall a couple of conditional baptisms.
The Church has a fair amount of wisdom collected from the last 2,000 years or so. If the issue starts popping up, not with evidence, but with people getting their knickers in a knot while engaging in “what if” scenarios, then the Church may respond that absent evidence, the presumption stands; or it may suggest a limited number of conditional baptisms.
While there are an estimated 800 million Protestants world wide, the US has the largest estimated number, at around 160 million. From Catholic News Agency comes the following comment: "According to the CDF, the “deliberate modification of the sacramental formula” to use “we” instead of “I” appears to have been done “to express the participation of the family and of those present, and to avoid the idea of the concentration of a sacred power in the priest to the detriment of the parents and the community.”
On another thread, someone was implying that there may be a multitude of Protestants who are in this Catch-22. However, I suspect that if that is what is going on - that there are a multitude of people in RCIA upset about the ruling (and I have not read the document itself) I would point out that the CDF appears to have been answering a question not of baptisms done by Protestants, but by Catholics - it uses the term “priest” in the quote.
In other words, this appears to possibly be limited to evidence that one or some priests may have used an incorrect formula, and the matter, while serious, is a matter limited to Catholic baptisms.
And without reading the document, or someone inquiring of the CDF, there may be no reason to presume that all, most, many some or a few Protestant baptisms suffered from the same change of formula.
(continued)
