Invalid Baptisms Challenge- "We Baptize"

[MNathaniel]

It’s disheartening to learn others are facing such an uphill battle just to get a baptism.

I honestly suspect there’s an evil spirit at work in it.

I mean, what do I know. But there’s just such a consistent, and bewildering message, from those putting up obstacles. Comes across to me as expressive of something deeper than just a single issue. Part of some broader spirit of believing certain holy things just “don’t matter”, or as if external appearances of nothing ever going wrong are better than acknowledging potential wrongs and preventing or fixing them…

I don’t know. But I don’t so much feel at this point like I’m arguing with individuals as much some some more ominous ‘spirit’ behind how so many people are acting.

Again, didn’t even plan to post on this specific thread. And my goal honestly isn’t to insult the people I quoted (and I’m not trying to call them demon possessed, for the record).

But given that they posted publicly, I wanted to register my dismay publicly. Because words honestly can discourage, and those not in this situation may not understand unless those in this situation speak up.

 

[otjm]

To suggest a sacrament objectively makes such a non-difference to the human soul, that it’s equally reasonable to just ‘presume’ the sacraments are validly received as to ensure the sacraments are validly received, is such an insane concept to me.

That is not how I have learned issues of sacramental theology. What I have been taught is that man is bound by God’s law, but God is not bound by man’s law.

I don’t quetion the right of the Church to establish the formula for baptism; nor do I make light of any sacrament - including baptism and marriage.

If someone was baptized by a Protestant minister or a Protestant deacon or other individual and they used the wrong formula, it may well be that no one is ever going to know that. Does that mean they cannot get to heaven? I don’t think that is what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that a priest must use the formula “I baptize…” The Church also says that if one party is a Catholic, they must have a priest witness their marriage; but the Church recognizes marriages between Protestants who may have the marriage witnessed by a non-ministerial individual (e.g., a judge, a Justice of the Peace, or at the Las Vegas Chapel of Chimes).

It is up to the CDF to sort through what the Church will recognize as a valid baptism; so far it appears their ruling only applies to priests; and whether or not the CDF would say that “We baptize…” in a Protestant baptism has yet to be answered, if the quoted passage is the substance of the ruling…

It is my understanding that “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” do not cut it for any baptism, Catholic or Protestant. The same may, or may not be said for “We (and etc.)”. that is up to the CDF, and barring them stepping into the breach, the local bishop.

This may be a bit too fine a distinction, and I can understand that. But let me ask it another way: if you went to Mass and realized the priest was using leavened bread, would you receive Communion?

I have; and the circumstances were at an Eastern Rite Mass at a Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church - which is in union with Rome. While a Roman rite may not use leavened bread, that is the normal bread used for Consecration; and in fact, while in the Roman rite leavened bread is invalid matter, it appears that in the history of the Roman rite, there were times it was valid.

As I noted, I do not have the document from the CDF. What little has been quoted appears to be directed to Catholic priests, not necessarily Protestant baptisms. The document may or may not address that matter.

If it does, then I consider it ruling, and would operate under the guidance of the bishop.

If it does not, then it seems to me that the CDF has to answer the issue.

And God is still in charge, and part of the question.

 

[StudentMI]

It is up to the CDF to sort through what the Church will recognize as a valid baptism; so far it appears their ruling only applies to priests; and whether or not the CDF would say that “We baprize…” in a Protestant baptism has yet to be answered.

The priest and bishop here decided it applied to me and I was ‘baptized’ in a Protestant church. I think you’re arguing for a distinction that doesn’t really matter. As Mark said, it’s one baptism.

 

[otjm]

Part of some broader spirit of believing certain holy things just “don’t matter”, or as if external appearances of nothing ever going wrong are better than acknowledging potential wrongs and preventing or fixing them…

You might want to be a bit cautious as to what I have said, or making implications that either I or the Church has made any potential wrongs.

"believing certain holy things just “don’t matter” I am going to ask you to retract that statement. Nothing I have said should indicate to anyone that I believe “certain holy things don’t matter”.

If you have the link to the CDF statement, I would appreciate you posting it as I don’t have it.

And if you don’t have it, then it would appear that the direction from the CDF applies to Catholic priests using an incorrect formula, and it does not appear at this point to be a statement as to the validity or invalidity of Protestant baptisms.

 

[StudentMI]

And if you don’t have it, then it would appear that the direction from the CDF applies to Catholic priests using an incorrect formula, and it does not appear at this point to be a statement as to the validity or invalidity of Protestant baptisms.

My guess? They won’t issue a statement to that effect so as not to rock the ecumenical boat. Which is a shame.

 

[MNathaniel]

Does that mean they cannot get to heaven? I don’t think that is what the Church teaches.

I’ve heard this line a lot since finding out I may be invalidly baptized.

Please be advised that I’m not just worried about culpability or “getting to heaven”. One of my local priests (with a degree in sacramental theology) has confirmed that beyond the simple question of culpability, it does in fact make an objective difference, here and now in my daily life, whether I’m validly baptized (and validly receiving other sacraments) or not.

I’d like to be on the ‘valid-sacrament-receiving’ side of that difference, please.

It is up to the CDF to sort through what the Church will recognize as a valid baptism; so far it appears their ruling only applies to priests; and whether or not the CDF would say that “We baptize…” in a Protestant baptism has yet to be answered

I don’t think this is correct.

Please see the CDF’s responsum here:

http://press.vatican.va/content/sal...ubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein

This is not restricted to priests or non-Protestants. This is about the validity of baptism, full stop.

I wonder if perhaps what you’ve previously seen on this topic was just about the Fr. Hood situation, and that’s why you’re so far thinking it’s mainly relevant to Catholic priests?

While it’s certainly relevant to Catholic priests, the point others are making here (and priests on these very CAF boards have agreed with us) is that it applies to Protestant laypeople too. And lay converts on these very CAF boards have already been approved for and/or already received proper baptism. Others (like myself) have evidence of specific reasons to doubt and are proceeding through the process to seek conditional baptism.

 

[MNathaniel]

"believing certain holy things just “don’t matter” I am going to ask you to retract that statement. Nothing I have said should indicate to anyone that I believe “certain holy things don’t matter”.

With respect, I am glad that you are stating that you believe holy things matter.

At the same time, unless you retract your statement dismissing people you consider to be getting their “knickers in a knot”, and advocating that those working in RCIA literally ”should not be inquiring” about the baptismal formula used for candidates, I’m afraid I cannot retract my assessment of these statements.

To my eyes these statements convey that the sacraments don’t matter enough to get our “knickers in a knot” about, or to risk sending candidates into a “tailspin” (read: enabling them to access surety of sacraments through the safeguard of conditional baptism) over.

So with my mouth I will say what I see.

If you retract your statements though, again: I’ll retract mine.

 

[MNathaniel]

PS, apologies to the OP that this thread seems to have devolved into the same situation as all the other similar threads on this topic so far.

Basically back and forth about what the CDF has said and how we’re supposed to interpret it.

I know that’s not the original intent of your thread here so again, apologies.

 

[otjm]

The priest and bishop here decided it applied to me and I was ‘baptized’ in a Protestant church. I think you’re arguing for a distinction that doesn’t really matter. As Mark said, it’s one baptism.

Actually, it does matter. There are distinctions in liturgical law which matter: 1) what is valid matter for the Eucharist? In the Roman rite, it must be unleavened bread. In the Maronite rite Mass I have been to, they used unleavened bread, in the Ruthenian rite they use leavened , and both are valid depending on the rite. 2) for a valid marriage, a Roman Catholic must have a priest as the official witness; in at least some Eastern rites the priest actually confects the Sacrament rather than simply being an official witness. In a Protestant wedding, as long as the denomination does not make a specific requirement, the couple may be married in front of whomever that state allows.

2 Sacraments; 3 different answers. Yes, they do mean something.

I am not arguing what the CDF may or may not have said (and I suspect, did not say) about Protestant baptisms. That does not mean the matter does not apply but unless and until the CDF clarifies this, we have a whole lot of people speculating.

I am not speculating. What I see - in Catholic News Agency - is a small quote saying that priestsmay not change the formula of baptism.

I have zero problem with that.

I do not have a copy of the CDF directive.

But there seem to be a whole lot of people running around crying (effectively) “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” One thing I learned in law is that what is written applies to whom it was written, and what is not written is not decided. And I will repeat ad nauseum, I have not seen the document from the CDF.

If the CDF says the formula only applies to priests, I am fine with that. If it says it applies to all, I am fine with that. I don’t have a dog in the fight. But right now we have a bunch of people going around saying that "We (including whomever gets listed here) baptize in the… " have all made invalid baptisms including those by Protestant ministers, etc.,

And going on only the information (extremely limited) that priests must use the formula “I baptize” I am suggesting that we all take a really deep breath, not tell the Church what to say, not go around presuming a whole lot of people are not baptized by Protestants, and find out what the CDF has to say.

And yes, it does matter.

 

[MNathaniel]

until the CDF clarifies

My local priest with a degree in sacramental theology told me not to expect that the CDF will ever issue a further clarification on this. Apparently they don’t typically consider that their role. They have said what they intended to say, they have established a principle, and now others (i.e. we) need to sort out the application of that principle.

I don’t have a dog in the fight.

I do. This question is urgent for me. I am currently without Reconciliation or the Eucharist until this situation is resolved. Consider my knickers in a knot.

And be advised that I’m in a fighting mood until I’m in the same leisurely position as everyone else to talk about this as if it’s merely academic. (Though even then I hope I won’t lose my passion on behalf of others going through this after me.)

 

[otjm]

And what will you say if, per chance, the CDF says that this applies only to Catholic priests?

Reading the link, this applies to Cahtolic priests.

It may very well apply to all Protestants, ministerial or otherwise. Or it may not.

 

[MNathaniel]

And what will you say if, per chance, the CDF says that this applies only to Catholic priests?

Reading the link, this applies to Cahtolic priests.

It may very well apply to all Protestants, ministerial or otherwise. Or it may not.

I fully disagree with you about what the link says. I think the CDF Responsum clearly defines a condition of validity for baptism itself, and doesn’t restrict itself to solely apply to the initial case that prompted the ruling. It reads to me like most laws: prompted by a specific case, but then applicable across many cases.

But if the magisterium of the Church infallibly — at this point I think I’ll need infallibly — declares that if Protestants administer under “we baptize” language that would be invalid if done by Catholics, that baptism is somehow nonetheless valid?

Okay. I’ll accept that and I won’t seek conditional baptism.

In the meantime, my understanding is that valid/invalid is a universal question, whereas it’s licit/illicit that is rite-specific.

 

[Baho]

My wife was baptized in a Mennonite church as a teenager and I was baptized in a non-denominational church a couple years ago. For hers there was a certicate that said “(her name) was baptized in the name of the…” and that was it. No I or we or anything shown, and they accepted it. For mine all they could get was a photo and my word that it was in the trinitarian formula. I reached out to the pastor though and he said they typically say something to the effect of “Having heard your profession of faith… I baptize you in…” Honestly I can’t remember the language of the kids baptisms from even a couple months ago, I was so in my head at the time.

I trust that all of the Church authorities carrying out these corrective measures have the best interest of the Church and the faithful in mind, but it doesn’t make me happy that it’s a thing at all. It’s super stressful for folks I’m sure and an undue burden on people I think. If someone was baptized in a trinitarian formula, by someone with a correct understanding of the trinity and baptism, who intended to validly baptize them… where’s the problem? It seems so arbitrary to me. But I do suppose that I’m a layman. I’m just saying how I feel, not condemning anyone, necessarily.

 

[MNathaniel]

I trust that all of the Church authorities carrying out these corrective measures have the best interest of the Church and the faithful in mind, but it doesn’t make me happy that it’s a thing at all. It’s super stressful for folks I’m sure and an undue burden on people I think. If someone was baptized in a trinitarian formula, by someone with a correct understanding of the trinity and baptism, who intended to validly baptize them… where’s the problem? It seems so arbitrary to me. But I do suppose that I’m a layman. I’m just saying how I feel, not condemning anyone, necessarily.

I think this is a fair comment.

I mean honestly, I’m seeking conditional baptism but my first instinct was also to be straight-up annoyed at the CDF and think of reasons why their ruling didn’t seem like a ruling I thought I’d personally have made. Accusations of ‘magical thinking’ (etc) bounced around my head regarding such a significant consequence following a single word difference.

But the bigger burden for me has been the resistance from priests as I try to seek the conditional baptism I believe is now appropriate and necessary in my particular case. (My childhood denomination explicitly invites their ministers to choose between “I baptize” and “we baptize” language and there’s no way to know which one I received).

In my mind it should be easy for a priest to simply provide me the conditional baptism (and conditional confirmation). Would take less than 5 minutes, private location of their choice, name the place and time and I’ll go.

But for some reason the bar is set so high, for permitting conditional baptisms, and I’ve already been drudging through this process about a month now. With no guarantee that at the end of the tunnel I’ll be able to have confidence that I’ve received the gateway sacraments validly and can therefore continue to receive other sacraments in good conscience.

The case has already had to go to my bishop. I might end up having to involve canon lawyers.

Basically, the CDF ruling caused me a moment’s minor irritation.

It’s the followup of multiple priests forcing me to jump through a month’s worth of hoops (and counting) rather than just taking 5 minutes to provide conditional baptism and confirmation, that’s causing me the stress and burden.

 

[Baho]

That’s insane man, I’m so sorry to hear that. I don’t actually have evidence that mine was “I” vs “we” either, the pastor at my previous church could only say “typically we say…” so, maybe I should be doing what you are. I don’t really want to bring it up, even. My wife’s in the same boat where she doesn’t know and simply doesn’t want to ask. Is every Catholic legitimately supposed to do the detective work to track down their baptism wording or be re-baptized, re-confirmed, re-married or maybe even re-ordained? Or is it just like if we definitely know that we didn’t get it done right? And if I do assume that I’m good and I don’t redo it… do I go to hell? It’s very spooky. It’s not cool to be uncertain about your salvation.

In regard to canon lawyers, is it Saint Joseph’s Foundation that you’re considering reaching out to? They helped my wife and I fight forced convalidation of our marriage upon our entry into the church on the basis of already having a valid marriage. They’re great.

 

[MNathaniel]

Is every Catholic legitimately supposed to do the detective work to track down their baptism wording or be re-baptized, re-confirmed, re-married or maybe even re-ordained?

I don’t think so.

I think the ‘presumption’ people talk about is supposed to apply unless we have specific concrete reasons for doubting validity. We’re supposed to be able to trust the authorities who received us into the Church, to have effectively made sure that reception was accomplished validly. We’re not supposed to have to experience anxiety or be unduly burdened with questions beyond our particular authority.

In my case, because I happen to concretely have a copy of my childhood denomination’s handbook that guides ministers on how to conduct baptisms, I can see the reasons for doubt with my own eyes. In black and white they specifically invite their ministers to choose “we” language, which the CDF just specifically declared invalidating.

I’m not personally advocating for anyone to become newly agitated about their infant baptisms, although maybe others have different opinions.

I’ll be honest, at the moment with my own case, I’m a little bit funneled in to the aspect of the topic that most affects me (having concrete evidence producing doubt while simultaneously facing priestly resistance to granting conditional baptism). I’m not necessarily in a solid position right now to speak to the pastoral needs or nuances of someone in a different situation (e.g. who doesn’t already have specific evidence-based reasons to believe their baptism was invalid in specific ways).

Basically I’ll say this: Even before the CDF ruling, when going through RCIA? I already had serious doubts about my baptism. My sibling always did, too. There are pre-existing reasons I’ve always been suspicious of whatever ritual my childhood church performed, this CDF ruling was just the straw that broke the camels back (in a very specific way that maybe Church authorities will actually pay attention to now that the CDF has made a declaration of invalidity about this specific thing). If you and your wife haven’t already had that internal feeling, and don’t have it even now… maybe you really have no issue to resolve!

I want to be clear that I don’t think I have authority to advise either way. If you do have concerns, please talk with a trusted priest.

In regard to canon lawyers, is it Saint Joseph’s Foundation that you’re considering reaching out to?

Yup! I’m glad to hear you had a good experience with them! That’s encouraging for if I do end up having to reach out to them.

 

[MarkRome]

And if you don’t have it, then it would appear that the direction from the CDF applies to Catholic priests using an incorrect formula, and it does not appear at this point to be a statement as to the validity or invalidity of Protestant baptisms.

Again, why are you using using the words “Protestant baptism”. There is only ONE baptism. The proper form is required for the Sacrament of Baptism, Catholic or Protestant.

 

[MarkRome]

It may very well apply to all Protestants, ministerial or otherwise. Or it may not.

Where has the Church ever said that Protestant baptisms can have a different form/matter and still be valid?

 

[Horton]

This is not restricted to priests or non-Protestants. This is about the validity of baptism, full stop.

This is where you go off track. The ruling is not about the validity of baptism across the board, it is about does a priest have authority to change the wording of the rite? The CDF is ONLY speaking about the rite in the Catholic Church. The following quote is from the decision from the
CDF and the language is very specifically Catholic. The use of the word minister does not mean any minister such as in a Protestant church, but the language of who are the ordinary ministers of certain sacraments. For the sacrament of baptism the ordinary minister is a bishop, priest, or deacon. Protestant ministers do not receive Holy Orders and therefore cannot act in persona christi as priests can. So only a priest is able to do the things talked about in this paragraph.
The CDF knows this answer, this is response is crystal clear to 99.9% of Catholics will not see the need to clarify further.

When the minister says “I baptize you…” he does not speak as a functionary who carries out a role entrusted to him, but he enacts ministerially the sign-presence of Christ, who acts in his Body to give his grace and to make the concrete liturgical assembly a manifestation of “the real nature of the true Church”[11], insofar as “liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the ‘sacrament of unity,’ namely the holy people united and ordered under their bishops

The Catholic Church has no authority over Protestant denominations, they cannot order them to baptism in any certain way. When the Catholic Church investigated all the various Christian church’s baptisms and how they were done, I am absolutely certain they knew what to look for to make the correct decision.

Basically back and forth about what the CDF has said and how we’re supposed to interpret it.

There is no ambiguity in the response, it needs very little interpretation.

The Catholic Church believes in one baptism and has determined you were validly baptized because the correct form and matter were followed. As the Church has determined you are validly baptized, your priest sees no reason to duplicate a sacrament.

 

[InThePew]

And if you don’t have it, then it would appear that the direction from the CDF applies to Catholic priests using an incorrect formula, and it does not appear at this point to be a statement as to the validity or invalidity of Protestant baptisms.

By extension it would apply to them but the way in which ecumenical baptism are handled makes a statement unnecessary. There’s a list of churches whose baptisms we recognise as valid (or not as the case may be) based on the wording used in their ritual books (we do actually expect that they will have followed their own rite but then we expect that of Catholic ministers too… a bold assumption maybe). We’re there’s no ritual book (or governing authority for that matter) enquiries can be made as to whether the one who was baptised remembers (or recorded) what was said and how the baptism was done (YouTube is both a blessing and a curse). If it’s not clear or the person can’t remember (although “we typically say…” should be sufficient) then they should be conditionally baptised.

Is every Catholic legitimately supposed to do the detective work to track down their baptism wording or be re-baptized, re-confirmed, re-married or maybe even re-ordained? Or is it just like if we definitely know that we didn’t get it done right? And if I do assume that I’m good and I don’t redo it… do I go to hell? It’s very spooky. It’s not cool to be uncertain about your salvation.

In general we trust that things were done properly the first time unless there’s clear evidence to the contrary (and admittedly sometime there is) but salvation is another thing altogether - uncertainty about the administration of baptism doesn’t equate to uncertainty about salvation.

too many RCIA teachers know very little about the faith they teach.

To many RCIA workers get too little appreciation for the work they do. They’re not professionals and in many cases not even paid. Most parishes can’t afford to hire somebody full time (and some not even part time). It’s unfair to expect those working in RCIA to be versed in the nuances of sacramental theology, ecclesiology and not to mention canon law. Many have no qualifications beyond their own experience in the faith yet willingly give up their own evenings and weekends to share what they’ve learned with others. The real problem is too many priests are too hands off when it comes to parish ministries like RCIA, seeing their role as entrusting all the responsibility to lay people and nothing more.