Is my daughter's baptism valid?

[lillydew]

It has come to pass recently that a parish we once belonged to has come under scrutiny by both the local bishop and The Vatican for some of it’s unorthodox practices. One of these is that any baptisms prior to a certain date were being regarded as invalid due to the priest using the words :‘I baptise you in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer’ instead of ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. This particular practice has now ceased but many previous baptisms are now being questioned. Our daughter was baptised there over ten years ago and anyone concerned have been asked to contact the church about this matter. Before I do this, if I do, I thought it might be pertinent to discuss this online, as my thoughts are inconclusive about this. Any factual information or personal comments are welcome. Thanks:juggle:

 

[Seatuck]

It has come to pass recently that a parish we once belonged to has come under scrutiny by both the local bishop and The Vatican for some of it’s unorthodox practices. One of these is that any baptisms prior to a certain date were being regarded as invalid due to the priest using the words :‘I baptise you in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer’ instead of ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. This particular practice has now ceased but many previous baptisms are now being questioned. Our daughter was baptised there over ten years ago and anyone concerned have been asked to contact the church about this matter. Before I do this, if I do, I thought it might be pertinent to discuss this online, as my thoughts are inconclusive about this. Any factual information or personal comments are welcome. Thanks:juggle:

You don’t say if you remember the words used at Baptism. Do you ? If the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer were used then yes the baptism is invalid. I wouldn’t waste time on a message board to tell you the truth . I’d go get a valid Baptism for my child if this is the case. Baptism is too important.

 

[puzzleannie]

the parents should go to their current pastor, bring the matter to his attention and follow his advice. As is being done in another parish where this occured, he will probably very quietly give a conditional baptism, and see too it, by communicating with the bishop, that the original sacramental record notes this has been done.

 

[lillydew]

Below I have pasted part of an article written on the web by a priest. It is in this context that I have become unsure…if my daughter has made her first communion, does this then mean it is not recognised? By God or by Rome?
And yes, I do recall the priest at the time using those specific words, ‘Seatuck’ .
Thanks.


The Vatican has ruled these “baptisms” are not merely illicit, they are invalid. And Roman Catholic teaches that all subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage are not regarded as valid by the Roman Catholic Church.

If the baptisms in the Brisbane archdiocese were valid but illicit according to Roman Catholic teaching, as ------ suggests, there is no need for those so “baptised” to have anything rectified. It is solely the priests who broke their church’s rules that would need to be spoken to. ------- has now muddied the water (pun intended) as his diocese is calling for those so “baptised” to come forward – but he has also said that these baptisms were perfectly valid which would mean there are no consequences for anyone other than the clergy involved and the call to come forward on their diocesan website (link off this site) would be rather bazaar.

 

[Joysong]

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1978353/posts

First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?

Second question: Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?

RESPONSES

To the first question: Negative.

To the second question: Affirmative.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

 

[Seatuck]

I’m so sorry you are in this position. The Church really dropped the ball on this one. The Vatican has clearly stated the baptisms done without the correct form were invalid. Since Baptism is the gateway to the other Sacraments there is cause of concern over the validity of the First Communion. I’d go to the church and get the answers I need. Go get this taken care of right away. Again , I’m really sorry and you have my prayer. Satan is a clever one and got his influence in the church but he has been stopped in this case. Work with the solution to defeat Satan for your daughter’s sake.

 

[lillydew]

Thanks for your reply, ‘Seatuck’. I understand the Church to carry the divine revelation of Christ, therefore, as I understand it, to be the letter of the law that cannot be changed in essence. However, in discussion with my husband, he has brought to my attention that Christ accused the Pharisees of living by the letter of the law and not the spirit. He believes that God would have known the intention and thus the sacrament would be valid. I have a feeling this is going to create some tension for us… …

 

[Nickkname]

Thanks for your reply, ‘Seatuck’. I understand the Church to carry the divine revelation of Christ, therefore, as I understand it, to be the letter of the law that cannot be changed in essence. However, in discussion with my husband, he has brought to my attention that Christ accused the Pharisees of living by the letter of the law and not the spirit. He believes that God would have known the intention and thus the sacrament would be valid. I have a feeling this is going to create some tension for us… …

Tell your husband this:

God instituted Baptism with the intention and the formula in mind. He said to baptize everyone in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - and I know He meant what He said and we should not take His place in regards to His sacrament. Furthermore, there’s an old saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is especially so for Baptism, because Baptism is the only way to be saved from the eternal flames.

 

[lillydew]

Tell your husband this:

God instituted Baptism with the intention and the formula in mind. He said to baptize everyone in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - and I know He meant what He said and we should not take His place in regards to His sacrament. Furthermore, there’s an old saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is especially so for Baptism, because Baptism is the only way to be saved from the eternal flames.

: …in his and God’s eyes, she is baptized and so to consider the thought of her burning eternally in hell for a mistake the priest made seems a little fundamental to me. Sorry.:ehh:

 

[Seatuck]

: …in his and God’s eyes, she is baptized and so to consider the thought of her burning eternally in hell for a mistake the priest made seems a little fundamental to me. Sorry.:ehh:

See that’s the thing. The Vatican wouldn’t have ruled the way it did if there was evidence of a baptism in God’s eyes.That’s the reason for the charge of invalid. As in no baptism took place that God can see. Christ gave the church the power to bind on heaven and earth. The correct formual was given to the church. No one had the authority to change it. This was a horrible , horrible departure from the permitted actions of the church no doubt orchestrated by the evil one.

I’d have to say there are few areas I’d go against my husband on. This would be one of them if he refused to allow a valid baptism. Even if I had to do it myself at the kitchen sink.

Have they said what will happen when these youngsters are older and they wish to be married or ordained and they don’t correct the invalid baptism. What then? Are they keeping track of each of these invalid baptisms? Will these children have a problem later if this doesn’t get done now? Will they insist on a baptism before confirmation? You need to know the answer to these questions if you don’t already. Might as well do it now if it has to be done.

 

[lillydew]

In relation to my daughter’s upcoming confirmation, there was no request for a baptismal certificate and in fact, we were given the catachesis of the catholic church and told to instruct her ourselves. This is a different parish now and as I said in my introduction, the priest here is a lovely man, very devout and conservative, and would be appalled to know of this situation (he is on leave at the moment - I have only been privy to this knowledge recently). A question, then, in relation to being baptised with a ‘formula’, how is it that the thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised eternal life without ever having gone through this ritual? Is this about formulas or faith in God that he sees the intentions of the heart?

 

[japhy]

What should you do?

NOT DELAY on this forum any longer, go to a priest you can trust to baptize the way God intends His Church to baptize, and have your daughter baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Problem solved.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It has come to pass recently that a parish we once belonged to has come under scrutiny by both the local bishop and The Vatican for some of it’s unorthodox practices. One of these is that any baptisms prior to a certain date were being regarded as invalid due to the priest using the words :‘I baptise you in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer’ instead of ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. This particular practice has now ceased but many previous baptisms are now being questioned. Our daughter was baptised there over ten years ago and anyone concerned have been asked to contact the church about this matter. Before I do this, if I do, I thought it might be pertinent to discuss this online, as my thoughts are inconclusive about this. Any factual information or personal comments are welcome. Thanks:juggle:

Yes, you should contact the parish and consider a Conditional Baptism for her. It’s no big deal and takes 10 minutes, is always celebrated privately. Without Valid Baptism a person CANNOT possibly receive ANY other Sacraments validly. Her Baptism validity must be established with certainty.
.

 

[vee8]

We didnt make the laws concerning baptism Jesus did He even stated the formula and thats the way it is. Some things must be followed by the letter of the law as failure to do so could be dire. What if on your next flight the pilot or mechanic didnt feel like checking things according to the rules and took off saying well I think everything is ok. There are people in my life I who want to follow the rules to a t such as pilots, mechanics, doctors, other drivers, and priests.

Now there is a concern that your daughter has had an invald baptism so go talk to the priest. Just like a plane that experiences a problem right after take off it is better to go back and get it looked at then carry on hoping its not that bad or arguing about what might be wrong.

By the way just in case you feel this way dont blame yourself as a parent it isnt your fault you had a bad priest. You havent failed your daughter and the remedy is very easy.

 

[THurifer2]

I’m so sorry you are in this position. The Church really dropped the ball on this one. The Vatican has clearly stated the baptisms done without the correct form were invalid. Since Baptism is the gateway to the other Sacraments there is cause of concern over the validity of the First Communion. I’d go to the church and get the answers I need. Go get this taken care of right away. Again , I’m really sorry and you have my prayer. Satan is a clever one and got his influence in the church but he has been stopped in this case. Work with the solution to defeat Satan for your daughter’s sake.

A baptism will validate the other sacraments. So after baptism the child recieves the Eucharist just like the rest of us.

They don’t have to go through “first” commuion again. That would be superfluous. Eucharist itself is the sacrament. First Eucharist is just that…the first time one recieves the Eucharist.

 

[Usagi]

Is this about formulas or faith in God that he sees the intentions of the heart?

God sees intentions, yes, which is why there can be “baptism of desire” in situations where a person cannot be physically baptized.

However, the Church can only go by the sacraments as God has laid them down. A sacrament requires valid matter, form, and intention. In this case the matter and intention were correct, but the form was not.

Your daughter may very well be baptized in God’s eyes. God is not bound by His sacraments and can do anything He wants. However, the Church is not omniscient, and thus requires a record that a valid baptism was performed.

Of course, your daughter is not at fault, and neither are you. The blame lies squarely with the priests who chose to muck about with the sacrament. However, since the Church’s highest authority on such matters has ruled that their mucking about renders their baptisms not only illicit but invalid, your daughter will have to have a valid baptism performed and recorded in order to continue in the life of the Church.

Remember, God also treasures obedience to those whom He has placed in authority, in all matters that are not sinful. Even if you are morally certain that He has already granted your daughter the graces of Baptism, He will not be offended and indeed will be further pleased if your family goes along with the Church’s judgment.

As another poster suggested, it’s possible a conditional baptism would suffice, thus leaving up in the air the question of whether your daughter was originally baptized “in God’s eyes” but still satisfying the Church’s requirements. That might soothe your husband’s concerns.

I’m not entirely sure what “in forma absoluta” in the Vatican’s response means, though. It’s possible that it would close off the avenue of conditional baptism. Still, you should inquire.

Usagi

 

[Claire_from_DE]

God always acts through the (valid) sacraments. However, God is not limited to acting only through the sacraments (thus, just by his word, Jesus saved the thief on the cross). Since you and your daughter acted in good faith and with the intention of doing God’s will in receiving the sacraments, I would say God’s hand was on her. If she had died, I’m sure God would not judge her for her lack of baptism.

However, now that you have become aware that her baptism wasn’t valid, you and she should continue to do God’s will by submitting to the church’s authority in this. I think you and your husband should work through your feelings about this out of your daughter’s hearing. Neither you nor she are at fault and she should not doubt God’s love for her or have any thought that she should not have received communion.

Please have this taken care of asap. You can just explained that father baptized her the wrong way when she was a baby and she gets to be baptized again. This time she gets to say the promises for herself. Most people don’t get the chance to do this.

You could tell your husband that Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s not just a church rule. So it would be good to be obedient to this.

 

[lillydew]

It’s not as though I simply can go down there at this minute to speak about this - it is late at night and the parish priest is away on leave at the moment and I live on an island.
Why would I feel guilt as a parent? I’m endeavouring to resolve this rationally and I don’t feel I’m wasting my time here on the forum whilst I search for an understanding of this that will not offend my husband. I angst at the thought of having to explain to my daughter that she needs to revisit her baptismal sacrament again because a priest said the wrong words. She has just begun coming back to church and is beginning to get involved with her dad in the music and helps set up things in preparation for mass. I rejoice at her coming with us and am in no way about to crush her faith by telling her that her baptism ‘didn’t work’. If this needs to be done, then I will inform myself as much as possible on the matter so that I can also find the most delicate way of approaching her without floundering. This I deem to be more important at this moment than to simply rush her off for an instant baptism. I do not know the reason for the hurriedness a lot of you seem to be concerned with… did not Jesus say 'suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven? So it’s not like she’ll be burning in hell at this time…God knows, she has such a beautiful heart and cares so much for everyone and even ‘witnesses’ to her little friends at school, and has at times, brought at least five of them to church with her on various occasions. I think love guides the way here so that no-ones faith is bruised or crushed.
Much Love:hug3:

 

[THurifer2]

I did not Jesus say 'suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven? :

This quote actually bolsters the the urgency the others here have for you to get this done ASAP.

If you read the text is says suffer the little ones to come unto me,

DO NOT HINDER THEM…for theirs is the kingdom of heave.

the above passage is used often to underscore the urgency of infant baptism.

 

[lillydew]

:ehh:
???