Invalid Baptisms Challenge- "We Baptize"

[Horton]

Is every Catholic legitimately supposed to do the detective work to track down their baptism wording or be re-baptized,

No. What MNathaniel is saying is incorrect. It is completely different than your situation.

 

[MarkRome]

The CDF is ONLY speaking about the rite in the Catholic Church.

No need to go back and forth on this with you. “We baptize” , no matter who the minister is, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, ordained or lay person, no matter who it is, is invalid. To say Protestants can say “We baptize” but Catholics are held to “I baptize” is just false.

 

[Horton]

No need to go back and forth on this with you. “We baptize” , no matter who the minister is, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, ordained or lay person, no matter who it is, is invalid

Then provide the proof. So far I’ve seen the CDF ruling and it only pertains to the Catholic Church. It states so very clearly it is speaking of the baptism rite of the Church.

What real proof do you have that this ruling invalidates every baptism if it wasn’t done in the exact manner of the Catholic Church? I was baptized at three weeks old in a Protestant church. I couldn’t tell you the exact words used except the baptism was done in a faith traditions that had been approved by the Church previously and I had a certificate that said (name) was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Guess what, mine was valid even though it was the Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit

There was never a second though to whether the reverend used “we” or “I”.

So please provide proof of what you claim.

 

[otjm]

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.

Reading it, however, (and thank you for linking it), it addresses the Catholic Church. Nowhere does it appear to mention other Christian ecclesial bodies. Some of the brighter, if not the brightest minds are in the CDF, and they are eminently capable of expressing what they want to make known. It appears to be answering a question about Priests baptizing.

The CDF may very well intend to extend their ruling to the other Christian communities, and I presume them eminently capable of such. That they do not appear to do so in the directive simply means they have not done so; but we have people presuming they did so.

And it may very well be that they intend it to reach to all Christian baptisms. Or not. As I noted, leavened bread is not invalid matter in the Catholic Church; it is invalid in the Roman rite, and valid in some of the Eastern rites. So the issue of validity is at least in some circumstances a variable.

As a note: what comes from the CDF is not “infallible”. They have made a pronouncement on liturgical law. we are bound to obey (see e.g. issues of validity of matter for the Eucharist).

Our Archdiocese hired a chief liturgist, a Monsignor from back East and I have requested my deacon contact him for his opinion. As he is both fairly conservative and very scholarly, that is the best I can do at the moment. If I get an answer back, I will share it.

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

No, that is incorrect. Something may be illicit but still valid. It is not illicit for a Roman Catholic priest to use leavened bread. It is invalid, period - illicit would mean that he broke a law but still accomplished whatever - here, confection of the Eucharist. If a Roman rite priest attempts to confect the Eucharist with leavened bread, it is not the Eucharist. Period. If it were only illicit, he might be guilty of a sin, but it would still be the Eucharist. Not so - after he says the words of consecration over leavened bread, it is still just leavened bread.

 

[otjm]

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.

There are Protestant denominations which have up to three formulas and yet they are on the list of accepted baptisms. I for one am not going to challenge the Church and say the list is wrong.

 

[Anesti33]

It’s very simple, let’s set aside the doctrinal note, which of course takes the point-of-view of inside the Catholic Church, and address the dubium and responsum themselves.
Dubium:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formula
«We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit»

QUESTIONS

First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formula « We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit» is valid?

Second question: Whether those persons for whom baptism was celebrated with this formula must be baptized in forma absoluta ?

RESPONSES

To the first question : Negative.

To the second question : Affirmative.

That’s the only content of the responsum. Do you see “Catholic baptism” or “Catholic Church” anywhere in here? I didn’t think so. This dubium pertains to baptisms, not to a Church. A minister is a minister is a minister, no matter what the ecclesial community – sacramental theology calls this the “ordinary (or extraordinary) minister of baptism” regardless of the Church in question.

We can also see evidence right here on CAF, where members who were baptized this way, in a Protestant ecclesial community, now must be re-baptized. There is no way the Church would do that if this dubium were so limited as you claim.

 

[MNathaniel]

As I noted, leavened bread is not invalid matter in the Catholic Church; it is invalid in the Roman rite, and valid in some of the Eastern rites…

If a Roman rite priest attempts to confect the Eucharist with leavened bread, it is not the Eucharist. Period.

Wait. What?

Earlier today I decided to just stop responding to this thread because it doesn’t seem productive.

But (and I thank you for speaking so clearly, I think this will help us drill down to the root of our disagreement here):

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re literally saying you believe that the magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that within the single unified Catholic Church (which contains both the Roman and Eastern rites, both in communion with Rome, we’re not even talking about Eastern Orthodoxy here), if there are

• Two tables in a room. Tables A and B.
• And there’s both unleavened bread and leavened bread on Table A.
• And both unleavened bread and leavened bread on Table B.
• And a Roman Rite priest stands at Table A and an Eastern Rite priest stands at Table B.
• And both priests say the words of consecration over both types of bread at their respective tables.
• You believe that will result in Table A having the Eucharist plus ‘just unconsecrated leavened bread’ on the side, and Table B will have the Eucharist plus ‘just unconsecrated unleavened bread’ on the side?

Please advise as to whether I have correctly understood your position.

 

[Horton]

That’s the only content of the responsum. Do you see “Catholic baptism” or “Catholic Church” anywhere in here? I didn’t think so. This dubium pertains to baptisms , not to a Church. A minister is a minister is a minister, no matter what the ecclesial community – sacramental theology calls this the “ordinary (or extraordinary) minister of baptism” regardless of the Church in question.

I guess you just didn’t look far enough.
> DOCTRINAL NOTE
> on the modification of the sacramental formula of Baptism

Recently there have been celebrations of the Sacrament of Baptism administered with the words: “In the name of the father and of the mother, of the godfather and of the godmother, of the grandparents, of the family members, of the friends, in the name of the community we baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Apparently, the deliberate modification of the sacramental formula was introduced to emphasize the communitarian significance of Baptism, in order 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 that the formula in the Rituale Romano might seem to imply[1]. With debatable pastoral motives[2], here resurfaces the ancient temptation to substitute for the formula handed down by Tradition other texts judged more suitable. In this regard, St. Thomas Aquinas had already asked himself the question “utrum plures possint simul baptizare unum et eundem” to which he had replied negatively, insofar as this practice is contrary to the nature of the minister[3].

The Second Vatican Council states that: “when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”[4]. The affirmation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium , inspired by a text of Saint Augustine[5], wants to return the sacramental celebration to the presence of Christ, not only in the sense that he infuses his virtus to give it efficacy, but above all to indicate that the Lord has the principal role in the event being celebrated.

When celebrating a Sacrament, the Church in fact functions as the Body that acts inseparably from its Head, since it is Christ the Head who acts in the ecclesial Body generated by him in the Paschal mystery[6]. The doctrine of the divine institution of the Sacraments, solemnly affirmed by the Council of Trent[7], thus sees its natural development and authentic interpretation in the above-mentioned affirmation of Sacrosanctum Concilium . The two Councils are therefore in harmony in declaring that they do not have the authority to subject the seven sacraments to the action of the Church. The Sacraments, in fact, inasmuch as they were instituted by Jesus Christ, are entrusted to the Church to be preserved by her.
Con’t

 

[Horton]

It is evident here that although the Church is constituted by the Holy Spirit, who is the interpreter of the Word of God, and can, to a certain extent, determine the rites which express the sacramental grace offered by Christ, does not establish the very foundations of her existence: the Word of God and the saving acts of Christ
It is therefore understandable that in the course of the centuries the Church has safeguarded the form of the celebration of the Sacraments, above all in those elements to which Scripture attests and that make it possible to recognize with absolute clarity the gesture of Christ in the ritual action of the Church. The Second Vatican Council has likewise established that no one “even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”[8]. Modifying on one’s own initiative the form of the celebration of a Sacrament does not constitute simply a liturgical abuse, like the transgression of a positive norm, but a vulnus inflicted upon the ecclesial communion and the identifiability of Christ’s action, and in the most grave cases rendering invalid the Sacrament itself, because the nature of the ministerial action requires the transmission with fidelity of that which has been received (cf. 1 Cor 15:3).

In the celebration of the Sacraments, in fact, the subject is the Church, the Body of Christ together with its Head, that manifests itself in the concrete gathered assembly[9]. Such an assembly therefore acts ministerially – not collegially – because no group can make itself Church, but becomes Church in virtue of a call that cannot arise from within the assembly itself. The minister is therefore the sign-presence of Him who gathers, and is at the same time the locus of the communion of every liturgical assembly with the whole Church. In other words the minister is the visible sign that the Sacrament is not subject to an arbitrary action of individuals or of the community, and that it pertains to the Universal Church.

In this light must be understood the tridentine injunction concerning the necessity of the minister to at least have the intention to do that which the Church does[10]. The intention therefore cannot remain only at the interior level, with the risk of subjective distractions, but must be expressed in the exterior action constituted by the use of the matter and form of the Sacrament. Such an action cannot but manifest the communion between that which the minister accomplishes in the celebration of each individual sacrament with that which the Church enacts in communion with the action of Christ himself: It is therefore fundamental that the sacramental action may not be achieved in its own name, but in the person of Christ who acts in his Church, and in the name of the Church.

.

 

[Anesti33]

No, I said the doctrinal note is immaterial. It is not part of the Responsum proper. The Dubium did not ask about Catholic baptisms, it asked about baptisms. The most obvious common case of this is baptizing Protestants.

 

[Horton]

Therefore, in the specific case of the Sacrament of Baptism, not only does the minister not have the authority to modify the sacramental formula to his own liking, for the reasons of a christological and ecclesiological nature already articulated, but neither can he even declare that he is acting on behalf of the parents, godparents, relatives or friends, nor in the name of the assembly gathered for the celebration, because he acts insofar as he is the sign-presence of the same Christ that is enacted in the ritual gesture of the Church. 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”[12].

Moreover, to modify the sacramental formula implies a lack of an understanding of the very nature of the ecclesial ministry that is always at the service of God and his people and not the exercise of a power that goes so far as to manipulate what has been entrusted to the Church in an act that pertains to the Tradition. Therefore, in every minister of Baptism, there must not only be a deeply rooted knowledge of the obligation to act in ecclesial communion, but also the same conviction that Saint Augustine attributes to the Precursor, which “was to be a certain peculiarity in Christ, such that, although many ministers, be they righteous or unrighteous, should baptize, the virtue of Baptism would be attributed to Him alone on whom the dove descended, and of whom it was said: ‘It is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’ ( Jn 1:33)”. Therefore, Augustine comments: “Peter may baptize, but this is He that baptizes; Paul may baptize, yet this is He that baptizes; Judas may baptize, still this is He that baptizes»[13].

There is more if you’d like me to post it too.

 

[StudentMI]

I’m honestly confused over some of the responses here. I’m just going to add a few things.

My dad told his RCIA instructor that my baptism was invalid. She then asked me what denomination it was under. I told her. Her response? “Oh they’re valid, you’re fine.” She then tried to get me to take communion during Mass.

The priest and bishop, on the other hand, both decided differently. They both held it was an invalid baptism.

I share this to show that just because a church is on an approved list doesn’t guarantee anything. And well meaning but misinformed people seem to think such a list is the final say. It’s not.

 

[Horton]

We can also see evidence right here on CAF, where members who were baptized this way, in a Protestant ecclesial community, now must be re-baptized.

There are not people who MUST be baptized because their previously valid baptism is now invalid. There is one who believes his is invalid even though he has been told it is not. I’m a convert from a Protestant church and my baptism is as good today as it was the day it was done. I am a member of the body of Christ as I have been since I was three weeks old.

 

[StudentMI]

There are not people who MUST be baptized because their previously valid baptism is now invalid. There is one…

Um, hello? I’m here. I was baptized in a Protestant church as an infant and my priest and bishop decided it was invalid.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

We can also see evidence right here on CAF, where members who were baptized this way, in a Protestant ecclesial community, now must be re-baptized.

There are not people who MUST be baptized because their previously valid baptism is now invalid. There is one who believes his is invalid even though he has been told it is not. I’m a convert from a Protestant church and my baptism is as good today as it was the day it was done. I am a member of the body of Christ as I have been since I was three weeks old.

Yes, I think we have had at least three people who were the victims of an invalid “We baptize you” attempt, and they have related their journeys as they attempt with varying success to persuade the Church that they must be baptized conditionally, or forma absoluta as the responsum indicates.

 

[Anesti33]

Not if it is “we”.

The Church has authority over all Christians whether they recognize it or not.

“We” is never acceptable, and never valid.
[/quote]

There is no question of authority. God has authority over the sacraments, and it is for the Church to interpret that authority. If an invalid form is used, no authority in the world can supply validity there. The Church is merely interpreting the edges here.

 

[Anesti33]

The Church doesn’t have authority over Mormons, but she was very clear about the invalidity of their baptisms. (And it didn’t need to come attached to a doctrinal note).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

 

[otjm]

Time for me to back track my statement; Redemptionis Sacramentum being the ruling document, I was wrong and you are right.

There appears to be one or two defined groups within the Roman rite which may use leavened bread, but reception is to be restricted to that/those group(s).

 

[Vico]

… If a Roman rite priest attempts to confect the Eucharist with leavened bread, it is not the Eucharist. Period. …

An adaptation of rite or biritual faculties make it possible for a priest ascribed to the Latin church to use the liturgical rite of a different Catholic sui iuris church.

 

[InThePew]

I share this to show that just because a church is on an approved list doesn’t guarantee anything. And well meaning but misinformed people seem to think such a list is the final say. It’s not.

One of the difficulties which causes confusion is that other denominations lack the central authority of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy to be fair). Indeed, mot emphasises local autonomy. Adding to the confusion is that denominations are effectively labels which are used to describe a broadly similar collection of beliefs shared amongst different communities but which may or may not follow the same rules. Case in point, Free Will Baptists (as seen in the Youtube clip posted above) - hearing the name you might think their baptisms are valid since Baptists are on the list but, as the clip shows, that’s not the case (at least not for the baptism shown). Therein lies the problem. It would be too time consuming to investigate each and every Protestant baptism ; likewise to conditionally baptise all Protestant converts (not to mention unnecessary in some cases such as Presbyterians). What is required is some attention to detail when it comes to the details of previous baptism but as I said earlier, we shouldn’t be quick to criticise RCIA leaders and catechists when the problem is in fact under involved priests.