Invalid Baptisms Challenge- "We Baptize"

[MarkRome]

Then provide the proof. So far I’ve seen the CDF ruling and it only pertains to the Catholic Church.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the Church teaches that there can be a “Protestant” baptism and a “Catholic” baptism with different forms.

 

[MarkRome]

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.

I can agree with that. However, poor catechesis is still poor catechesis. You can blame the priest but the fact remains that many RCIA teachers teach wrong things about the faith.

Steve Ray put together this very handy chart on the Sacraments. Every RCIA Catechist needs to know this. You don’t need a seminary degree. Catholicism 101.

https://www.catholicconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/SacramentChart1.pdf

 

[PickyPicky]

In the Catholic baptism, the priest stands in the person of Christ, who is performing the baptism, and therefore, Rome says, “I” is the proper form.

But since Rome tells us that Protestant ministers do not stand in the person of Christ, presumably that argument no longer applies — indeed one could argue that baptising by the gathering of Christians is more appropriate?

 

[MarkRome]

In the Catholic baptism, the priest stands in the person of Christ, who is performing the baptism, and therefore, Rome says, “I” is the proper form.

You don’t need to be a priest to baptize. A lay person can baptize too. In fact, you don’t even need to be Christian to baptize someone. As long as you have the proper form, matter, and intent.

 

[OddBird]

But since Rome tells us that Protestant ministers do not stand in the person of Christ, presumably that argument no longer applies

Yes, but what about Catholic baptisms celebrated by lay people in extraordinary circumstances? May they use “we” then, since they’re not priests ?

I mean this as a serious question, if that’s the underlying logic.

 

[PickyPicky]

You don’t need to be a priest to baptize. A lay person can baptize too.

I did not say one needed to be a priest. I said Rome has used the argument that the priest stands in the person of Christ to explain why “I” is needed.

 

[MarkRome]

I said Rome has used the argument that the priest stands in the person of Christ to explain why “I” is needed.

The invalid baptism addressed by the CDF was by a deacon, not priest.

 

[Montrose]

There seem to be opposing opinions in this thread about whether the clarification applies only to the Catholic Church and its baptisms. I would not agree that it is solely for Catholic baptisms. The Church accepts the validity of certain non-Catholic baptisms and some think the only criteria are baptizing using water and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is not the case and the answer is not found in the Code of Canon Law. Canon law defers to the approved liturgical books where additional and specific answers are found.

What I have quoted below is about a case where a Catholic and a non-Catholic are to be married and the question of the validity of the baptism of the non-Catholic was asked. It is clear from the answer of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments that four things are required and the Church must check and be sure that all four are there before accepting a non-Catholic baptism. The four are use of water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the minister saying the words must also be the one that pours the water, and the required words are used and they are “I baptize” and not we baptize.

“So what did the Vatican’s former Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments have to say about this situation? Firstly, it acknowledged that in general, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of baptism performed by non-Catholic ministers, provided that they are done using the correct form and in the correct manner. It then concluded that minister who had pronounced the words of baptism in this particular case had indeed used the correct Triune formula, which the Church recognizes as valid.

But then the Congregation observed that the problem with this baptism was that this same minister is supposed to carry out both matter (the pouring of water or immersing of a person in it) and form (saying the required words) – something which obviously did not happen in this case. As was already noted above, the words of baptism, which begin with “N., I baptize you…” makes no sense if the person saying them is not the one actually doing the baptizing.

The Vatican didn’t randomly arrive at this conclusion out of nowhere. It cited St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), who wrote in his Summa Theologica about this very question:

…[T]he integrity of Baptism consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. Consequently, neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor he who dips. Wherefore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: “I baptize Thee”: since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: We baptize Thee”: since neither baptizes.

The Congregation concluded that for this reason, the baptism should be considered invalid.”

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes, but what about Catholic baptisms celebrated by lay people in extraordinary circumstances? May they use “we” then, since they’re not priests ?

I mean this as a serious question, if that’s the underlying logic

Indeed. I don’t pretend knowledge or expertise in this matter, I am only going by the quote by @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

 

[MarkRome]

but he enacts ministerially the sign-presence of Christ,

Anyone who ministers baptism: priest, deacon, lay person, unbaptized Hindu, does this when he/she baptizes.

From the CDF: "The Second Vatican Council states that: “when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”

 

[PickyPicky]

Anyone who ministers baptism: priest, deacon, lay person, unbaptized Hindu, does this when he/she baptizes.

From the CDF: "The Second Vatican Council states that: “when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”

Fascinating. And when a woman baptises, too, no doubt.

Thank you. That seems clear.

 

[Horton]

You don’t need to be a priest to baptize. A lay person can baptize too. In fact, you don’t even need to be Christian to baptize someone. As long as you have the proper form, matter, and intent.

Yes, but what about Catholic baptisms celebrated by lay people in extraordinary circumstances? May they use “we” then, since they’re not priests ?

Once again the use of the word “minister” is being misunderstood. All sacraments have ordinary ministers, which mean who of the ordained can preside over that particular sacrament. For instance, for baptism the ordinary ministers are deacons and priests (when I speak of priests I include bishops and higher as they are all priests). There are extraordinary ministers which are those laity who baptize in those unusual instances or in emergencies.

In the sacrament of reconciliation, the ordinary minister is a priest.
There isn’t an extraordinary minister for this sacrament as a priest is the only one who may act in persona christi.

So when the CDF talks about minister, it is not the Protestant minister they are speaking about, it is the ordinary minister of the sacrament.

Anyone who ministers baptism: priest, deacon, lay person, unbaptized Hindu, does this when he/she baptizes.

From the CDF: "The Second Vatican Council states that: “when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”

Once again you are misreading this. See above about the use of the “minister” in this ruling. Here is a link showing who are the ordinary ministers of each sacrament. https://www.hbgdiocese.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SIGN-EFFECTS-MINISTER-OF-SACRAMENTS.pdf

Why would VII say “when a man baptizes…” when even in the 60’s there were a few women pastors/preachers/ministers in some Protestant denominations? They say “when a man…” because they know all those who are ordinary ministers of baptism are male because they are ordained and women may not be ordained.

The CDF was speaking in Catholic language to a Catholic audience. The VII documents are written in Catholic language for a Catholic audience.

When I first decided to convert I learned quickly Catholics used many words and phrases in a different way than I had previously understood. Once of my early purchases of books was a Catholic dictionary. This kept me from making many presumptions about things because I didn’t understand the language.

 

[Horton]

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

Was you baptism deemed invalid because the word “we” was used or was it some other reason?

 

[MarkRome]

This kept me from making many presumptions about things because I didn’t understand the language.

I suggest you get a book on the Sacraments.

 

[Phemie]

MarkRome:

You don’t need to be a priest to baptize. A lay person can baptize too. In fact, you don’t even need to be Christian to baptize someone. As long as you have the proper form, matter, and intent.

Yes, but what about Catholic baptisms celebrated by lay people in extraordinary circumstances? May they use “we” then, since they’re not priests ?

Once again the use of the word “minister” is being misunderstood. All sacraments have ordinary ministers, which mean who of the ordained can preside over that particular sacrament. For instance, for baptism the ordinary ministers are deacons and priests (when I speak of priests I include bishops and higher as they are all priests). There are extraordinary ministers which are those laity who baptize in those unusual instances or in emergencies.

In the sacrament of reconciliation, the ordinary minister is a priest.
There isn’t an extraordinary minister for this sacrament as a priest is the only one who may act in persona christi.

So when the CDF talks about minister, it is not the Protestant minister they are speaking about, it is the ordinary minister of the sacrament.

Anyone who ministers baptism: priest, deacon, lay person, unbaptized Hindu, does this when he/she baptizes.

From the CDF: "The Second Vatican Council states that: “when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”

Once again you are misreading this. See above about the use of the “minister” in this ruling. Here is a link showing who are the ordinary ministers of each sacrament. https://www.hbgdiocese.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SIGN-EFFECTS-MINISTER-OF-SACRAMENTS.pdf

Why would VII say “when a man baptizes…” when even in the 60’s there were a few women pastors/preachers/ministers in some Protestant denominations? They say “when a man…” because they know all those who are ordinary ministers of baptism are male because they are ordained and women may not be ordained.

The CDF was speaking in Catholic language to a Catholic audience. The VII documents are written in Catholic language for a Catholic audience.

The problem there is that you are going by a translation. Only the Latin is definitive.

The French translation says
“lorsque quelqu’un baptise, c’est le Christ lui-même qui baptise “
When “someone” baptizes, it is Christ Himself who baptizes.

The Italian translation says
"quando uno battezza è Cristo stesso che battezza "
When “one” baptizes, it is Christ himself who baptizes.

In Latin it says
ita ut cum aliquis baptizat, Christus ipse baptizet
While that does translate to “when a man baptizes” in my google translator, I have to believe that when they wrote it if they really meant “a man” they would have written “virum” and not “aliquis” which on its own means “someone”.

 

[Gorgias]

The matter is water and the form is in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

Close, but not quite. The form isn’t limited to the trinitarian part of the formula, (although that part is often the sticking point).

The Church has determined which Christian denominations have a valid baptism

Dioceses tend to have lists that act as guidelines. They’re not “determinations” on their own, per se.

we as the laity have no business questioning whether a denomination’s baptism is valid or not.

You can certainly ask all the right questions, though, can’t you?

If you are concerned about “we baptize” or “I baptize” I really don’t think it matters at all.

I thought that the laity doesn’t have any business questioning validity?

I don’t think that matters. No pastor in his right mind is going to go looking for invalid baptisms because of this. People don’t need to go looking at their own baptism if the Church has already presumed that they’ve already been validly baptized.

The question, then, becomes whether the particular parish did the requisite due diligence to discern whether the prior baptism was valid.

So you come to insult two long time CAF posters

No. She’s hurting, and you’re telling her that her concerns don’t matter. “If you can’t say anything nice…”, Horton…

for a valid marriage, a Roman Catholic must have a priest as the official witness

You’ve written this a couple times in this thread, and I tried to ignore it, but… that’s not true. A Catholic and non-Catholic may be married in a Church ceremony celebrated by a deacon. (Maybe you meant “cleric” and not “priest”?)

So when the CDF talks about minister, it is not the Protestant minister they are speaking about, it is the ordinary minister of the sacrament.

That doesn’t seem to hold water. By that standard, you could argue that ordinary ministers must use proper form, but extraordinary ministers could baptize in the name of Larry, Curly, and Moe, and it would be a valid baptism. No… “minister” means “minister”. Full stop.

But since Rome tells us that Protestant ministers do not stand in the person of Christ

If it’s a valid baptism, then the minister does baptize thusly. Not by virtue of holy orders, though.

 

[Phemie]

You’ve written this a couple times in this thread, and I tried to ignore it, but… that’s not true. A Catholic and non-Catholic may be married in a Church ceremony celebrated by a deacon. (Maybe you meant “cleric” and not “priest”?)

It can even be a lay person appointed by the Bishop.

 

[otjm]

(Maybe you meant “cleric” and not “priest”?)

Of course.

I was born several decades before the deaconate was restored, and it is all too easy to speak the “language” I was taught. And I fully support the permanent deaconate.

 

[otjm]

No… “minister” means “minister”. Full stop.

That is the contention of those who are presuming that a document addressed to the Catholic bishops and priests is by implication addressed to all ecclesial communities.

I don’t presume to be a liturgical or a canon lawyer, but I have been a civil lawyer and one thing we were taught (sometimes with a bit of vengeance) in law school, is that what is presented in the law (be it statute or an appellate case) is that what id not specifically stated is not part of the decision/statute.

I have no reason to believe that what is written about a sacrament (which a whole lot of ecclesial communities do not believe in, as they have little or no sacramental theology) and directed to our bishops and priests is therefore applicable to non Catholic Christians.

It may or may not be applicable.

I have written an email to Zenit.org to inquire, hopefully of the priest who usually fields such questions. I have also spoken with my deacon, asking him to inquire of our archdiocesan liturgist, a Monsignor who is fairly conservative and very well researched and versed in liturgy; hopefully I will get a response from one of the two.

And I am fine with either a “yes” or a “no”. I am not, however, fine with non-liturgists saying this absolutely applies to all other ecclesial communities, which is essentially what we have going on now well outside the discussion in this forum.

And as a point, I have not said this applies or does not apply to non Catholics.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

The Catholic Church has authority over all Christians on the earth. Whether or not they recognize that authority is a different matter.