M
MarkRome
Guest
Valid
- Status
M
MarkRome
Guest
Valid
M
MarkRome
Guest
Baptisms performed by Joel Osteen appear invalid because he doesn’t say anything. Baptisms performed by other people at Lakewood Church (Osteen’s church) appear to be valid because they do say the correct words.
Last edited:
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
Will this mean that all converts baptized in denominations which has ”we baptize” as an alternative will recieve conditional baptism in the future?
M
Montrose
Guest
If you know you were baptised and the words used were “we baptize” then that should be mentioned to the priest but I would guess that almost no non-Catholics will know what words were used at their baptism and if it is on the list of approved baptisms by the Catholic church you should assume, in my opinion, that you are validly baptised.
I doubt very much if all converts will be expected to research back to their baptism to find out the words used on the day of their baptism.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
My son was born prematurely at 27 weeks. We didn’t expect him to survive, so we asked the doctor who is not Catholic, but a Christian, to Baptize him in the operating room. I was there and my wife had a C-Section. As soon as my son began to breath, the doctor Baptized him using the words, " Robert James, I Baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." My son did survive and is now 39 years of age.
We talked with our priest about it and he said it was a valid Baptism, and he would complete the ceremony of anointing with Holy Oil, which he did.
Now I suppose there will be some who will tell me that my son’s Baptism was invalid and it’s because of people like them, my son is no longer a Catholic.
We talked with our priest about it and he said it was a valid Baptism, and he would complete the ceremony of anointing with Holy Oil, which he did.
Now I suppose there will be some who will tell me that my son’s Baptism was invalid and it’s because of people like them, my son is no longer a Catholic.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Not only was it valid, it was the proper application of emergency baptism. Thanks for sharing and glad he survived.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I don’t think anyone here would suggest your son’s Baptism was invalid. Based on what you describe, everything about your son’s Baptism was entirely valid.
Glad your son survived. Glad your son was Baptized (and neither you nor he need worry about that, and no one will suggest either of you should).
Sorry to hear that he’s currently non-Practicing. I hope he returns to the gifts the Church has to offer.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
What I think Tuff is asking (or at least a reasonable question) is whether the list of approved baptisms will change.tuffsmurf:
If you know you were baptised and the words used were “we baptize” then that should be mentioned to the priest but I would guess that almost no non-Catholics will know what words were used at their baptism and if it is on the list of approved baptisms by the Catholic church you should assume, in my opinion, that you are validly baptised.
I doubt very much if all converts will be expected to research back to their baptism to find out the words used on the day of their baptism.
That is, for example, whether my own childhood denomination (which at the time I was in RCIA was on the ‘approved’ list) might find itself, subsequent to this CDF ruling, no longer on the next-printed ‘approved’ list, at least for whatever span of years it’s verifiable that they invited their ministers to perform invalid “we” baptisms.
Personally I think that’d be reasonable. Move such denominations to a new ‘case-by-case’ list whereby if there’s good reason to believe valid language was used (e.g. video footage, memory), nothing need be done… but if there’s good reason to believe invalid language was used (e.g. video footage, memory), in forma absoluta Baptism could be used. And (hopefully, in my opinion) if it’s genuinely in doubt either way, conditional baptism could be offered.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, that’s a valid option. In danger of death, a person may be baptized by any person, all other things being equal.
One would hope that, due to these circumstances, bishops will ask their priests to take care to investigate the putative baptisms of their RCIA candidates!
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Haha I had to google “putative”, but now can confirm I agree with your comment. Have a ‘like’.
P
Phemie
Guest
Why would anyone tell you that? Once upon a time medical staff knew how to properly administer Baptism in an emergency. The religion of the one administering the Baptism is irrelevant as long as the proper formula is used, water flows, and the intent to baptize is there.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
I don’t doubt my own baptism, since ”I baptize” is the only option used in the denomination I grew up in and only one pastor was present at my baptism (I don’t remember it since I was an infant, but I have seen pictures).
But denominations that use ”we baptize” apparently need to be looked into.
But denominations that use ”we baptize” apparently need to be looked into.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Invalid.
A
Anesti33
Guest
No, according to the responsum, it means that they will receive forma absoluta baptism, not conditional.
The “We” form is not dubious, it is prima facie invalid.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
IT is interesting that you note it a “particular audience”. The words are intended for that “audience”, and when the word “minister” is used, it is not used as a generic sense, but is referring to bishops, priests and deacons in the Catholic Church; someone in this thread has latched onto the use of the word and appears to conclude that somehow widens the letter to other ecclesial communities.
And that makes about as much sense as saying that if the letter, addressed as it is, used the word “presbyters” or “deacons” that would automatically apply to any ecclesial community which uses the same terms, even though they may have little or no sacramental theology.
Until someone who actually has authority to say whether or not this document applies to other ecclesial communities, it is a letter to the Catholic Church about the proper wording of the formula used in CAtholic baptisms. It may well apply elsewhere, but all we have is chin chatter as to its extension.
From Catholic Philly.com: "The correct formula in the Rite of the Sacrament of Baptism spoken by the bishop, priest or deacon is: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”. That is real specific.
Crux noted: "Signed on the June 24 Solemnity of Saint John the Baptist by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office, and by the department’s secretary, Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, the note said the apparent reason for the modification of the regular formula was “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.” My bold; again focused on the Catholic Church, and issues of priesthood therein.
As to the issue of problematic, the Church recognizes baptisms done in the Name of the Father… etc. by ecclesial communities which not only have no liturgy, and no or extremely minimal liturgical theology as validly baptizing, even if they may be virulently anti-Catholic and baptize as a sign or ordnance that the one being baptized has decided to follow Christ - meaning no concept of sacrament whatsoever, no ontological change in the individual, but just an “official” sign that the individual wants to (somehow) follow Christ. As in, some form of initiation ceremony.
Silence on an issue is silence on the issue, not implication that unless something is negatively held, that it is positively held.
I
InThePew
Guest
The difficulty is that you’re dealing with something which happened decades ago. While camcorders and cameras on phones (as well as other devices) have themselves been ubiquitous for decades whether the footage would have been retained or is in an accessible format is a whole other question. Granted it was video footage which led to the Detroit priest discovering the invalidity of his own baptism but I’d say this is very much the exception. Likewise the myriad of baptism footage on YouTube (hours of fun for arm chair canonists and sacramental theologians) may well not be there in 20 years time.
While those who were present can be asked for their recollection, they’re unlikely to have any recollection the precise wording of formula used (they’d probably remember if there were two ministers involved) never mind an awareness of the I/we distinction.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
I mean cases where someone was baptized as an infant in a denomination that uses both, and don’t remember what form was used.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
This has very far-reaching consequences, not just for converts. Invalid baptism means that those communities are not even christian according to Catholic teaching. Catholics who wish to marry a protestant who not has an invalid/doubtful baptism can not have a sacramental marriage and need dispensation from the bishop. How many marriages are now considered invalid because of that fact alone?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Marriage has the presumption of validity, so for the marriage to be invalid, one or both parties would have to prove it was invalid. It’s possible that someone seeking an annulment might try to make an argument based on one of the parties not having been properly baptized at the time of the marriage, and they’d have to have proof of that, like a video or some eyewitness testimony to the baptism in question.
However, if the couple don’t ever seek an annulment, the marriage will just continue to be presumed valid. At worst, it would be a non-sacramental natural marriage.
Last edited:
- Status