Invalid Baptisms Challenge- "We Baptize"

[1Lord1Faith]

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

due what now??

 

[Anesti33]

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

I am not sure what you understand as “authority” but the Church claims none to bind non-Catholics to ecclesial laws. Non-Catholics are not required to go to Mass on Sunday, to fast on Fridays, or to observe canonical form in marriage, for example.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

My mistake, I seemed to have forgot St. Peter’s authority to bind and loose on earth was limited. /s

 

[MNathaniel]

I am not sure what you understand as “authority” but the Church claims none to bind non-Catholics to ecclesial laws. Non-Catholics are not required to go to Mass on Sunday, to fast on Fridays, or to observe canonical form in marriage, for example.

My impression is that folks agree with your meaning when it comes to those things that bind Catholics only, and when Catholic authority over all Christianity is mentioned people more mean it in the sense of, by virtue of the teaching office Christ gives her, the Catholic Church has authority to declare what’s true and what isn’t true on matters of faith or morals, and her authoritative statements on such matters apply universally, even to those not in Communion with her and even though they don’t recognize this teaching authority.

My impression of what folks are saying, anyway. Not trying to speak for anyone, just hopefully help clarify.

Basically Jesus did give Peter the keys to the kingdom, to bind and to loose. So folks are saying that this authority exists whether or not certain people are aware of it or recognize it. Not quite the same as saying that the Church think she can micro-manage the rites and practices of ecclesial communities that choose to be outside of Communion with her.

 

[StudentMI]

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

Both the ‘we’ issue and another reason as I’ve explained before. It wasn’t either-or. It was both-and.

 

[Horton]

I have no idea what the other issue was so if you could please enlighten me. I don’t read every word you write.

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t read every word you write.

But I thought everyone here did.

I kid.

Seriously, though, what happened is this. Two Lutheran pastors baptized me. One said “we baptize you in the name of the Father,” and poured water over my head. The second then said “and of the son” and poured water. Then the first said “and of the Holy Spirit” and poured water.

I was told both the method and the use of ‘we’ were both problems.

 

[Horton]

I suggest you get a book on the Sacraments.

And I suggest you learn more about the Catholic Church. I work for the Church and no one, including our bishop, has any problem with my knowledge of the sacraments.

So far I’ve heard about two very recent Catholics who are questioning their own baptisms after being told their baptisms were valid when they came into the Church. With one of them being told more than once that their baptism was valid and there is no good reason to believe he/she must be re-baptized.

I believe this all stems from the story about the priest who found he was invalidly baptized and suddenly there is a huge panic. People who believe they know more than the Church are reading all kinds of things into this that simply are not true.

For me, unless I get a specific notice from my bishop address this issue, I am going to go on with the certainty my baptism in a Protestant church has been valid for close to 60 years. I know I do not know more than the Church and I know I can trust the Church to guide the faithful in the correct way, the God wants us to go.

 

[Horton]

But that is a very different situation than just saying “we” baptize. I would agree there would be an issue with validity there.

 

[StudentMI]

So far I’ve heard about two very recent Catholics who are questioning their own baptisms after being told their baptisms were valid when they came into the Church.

If you’re including me in that, my priest and bishop decided my baptism and confirmation were invalid. I’ve already been baptized and confirmed since, in the past few weeks.

 

[StudentMI]

But that is a very different situation than just saying “we” baptize.

Yes it is. But again, they both decided the use of ‘we’ was a factor as well.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

At the same time, it is not advisable to tell others that their concerns are not valid. That you interpret the CDF to have no concerns for you is fine, but you really shouldn’t press that on others.

 

[Horton]

I actually didn’t include you in that as 1. I know you aren’t so unreasonable having participate in many discussions you were part of, and 2. I was waiting to see what the other issue was.

 

[Horton]

That is not what I have been saying. I am suggesting however, they learn to trust the Church in these matters rather than relying on their own understanding of them.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

What you are suggesting is that they trust your interpretation of matters over their intuition and investigation by the hierarchy.

 

[Horton]

Going to mute. There is no use trying reason with people

 

[MNathaniel]

Not sure. Tired. Going for a walk.

Besides, poster says he’s muted this thread anyway. Maybe God providentially aligned that timing for some reason, haha.

 

[runningdude]

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

That is literally the point of this post.

The Church has determined which Christian denominations have a valid baptism, we as the laity have no business questioning whether a denomination’s baptism is valid or not.

The Vatican has said using the form “we baptize” is invalid regardless of denomination, and a new baptism must be performed unconditionally. As you note, the laity should not take this new determination lightly.

 

[Montrose]

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.

You didn’t read my earlier post about the conditions set by the Church for accepting non-Catholic baptisms as valid??

• use of water
• in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
• required wording “I baptize”, not we
• minister who speaks the words must be the one pouring the water

You seem to think the requirement is only the first two items above. For the Church to accept a non-Catholic baptism all 4 have to be complied with.

 

[Gorgias]

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

That’s an interesting contention. Sure, the document might have been directed to a particular audience, but inasmuch as it discussed the validity of a sacrament, are you suggesting that validity differs based on audience? That seems problematic, at best, and vacuous at worst.

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.

Right. Because there are multiple standards for validity. Liceity, perhaps… but not validity, 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.

Then again, did the CDF say that it doesn’t apply to other communities? Or did it merely discuss validity, which doesn’t admit to a constant standard, as such?

due what now??

Due diligence. Ya know… to determine whether a sacrament actually took place?

Going to mute. There is no use trying reason with people

Yeah… you’re just digging yourself deeper and deeper…

The Vatican has said using the form “we baptize” is invalid regardless of denomination

To be fair, they didn’t say – explicitly – “regardless of denomination”. They said, flatly and without distinction, “we baptize” is invalid. Those who attempt to construe it to mean “only in the Catholic Church” are the ones who are spinning it beyond what had been declared.