Overreactions to the whole "I" and "We' Baptize you clarification?

[PatienceAndHumility]

So after the recent clarification from the CDF on Baptisms- “we” shouldn’t be used, it should be “I”, the usual commentators online have overreacted imo. I’m not sure if it’s just me who thinks this and am sorry in advance if I am missing something here!

The usual commentators (being LSN, Taylor Marshall etc.) have applied the logic- the clarification means all baptisms administered using the incorrect wording were invalid. Therefore any sacrament or order which followed forth was also invalid. E.g. the instance of the priest who dug up a video of his own baptism, found that “we” was used and subsequently re-ordained as a priest. Commentators concluded that sacraments given by said priest before his ‘re-ordination’ were also invalid…

This is absurd legalism. Surely we ought to have confidence that holy mother church, as Christ’s bride, is not burdened by such legalistic deduction?

Don’t get me wrong. Of course- the clarification is not a problem. But the conclusions springing forth appear to be unfortunate overreactions.

There might be a plethora of people invalidly baptized and priests invalidly ordained in this cycle of perpetual invalidity?? To me this is an illogical overreaction and applies a false mechanism to the clarification.

 

[Fauken]

The usual commentators (being LSN, Taylor Marshall etc.) have applied the logic- the clarification means all baptisms administered using the incorrect wording were invalid.

This is correct. The Vatican said as much.

CDF: Baptisms conferred with arbitrarily modified formulas are not valid - Vatican News

Therefore any sacrament or order which followed forth was also invalid. E.g. the instance of the priest who dug up a video of his own baptism, found that “we” was used and subsequently re-ordained as a priest.

This is also correct per canon law.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html

“Can. 842 §1. A person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments.”

Commentators concluded that sacraments given by said priest before his ‘re-ordination’ were also invalid…

Excepting baptism and marriage, they are correct, because he was not validly ordained.

This is absurd legalism. Surely we ought to have confidence that holy mother church, as Christ’s bride, is not burdened by such legalistic deduction?

This isn’t legalism. The Sacraments are not arbitrary, they are definitive. And everyone has the right to have them done validly and properly. God may work outside of them, but the Sacraments cannot be outside what God and the Church has defined them to be.

Say the black, and do the red.

 

[porthos11]

So after the recent clarification from the CDF on Baptisms- “we” shouldn’t be used, it should be “I”, the usual commentators online have overreacted imo. I’m not sure if it’s just me who thinks this and am sorry in advance if I am missing something here!

The usual commentators (being LSN, Taylor Marshall etc.) have applied the logic- the clarification means all baptisms administered using the incorrect wording were invalid. Therefore any sacrament or order which followed forth was also invalid. E.g. the instance of the priest who dug up a video of his own baptism, found that “we” was used and subsequently re-ordained as a priest. Commentators concluded that sacraments given by said priest before his ‘re-ordination’ were also invalid…

This is absurd legalism. Surely we ought to have confidence that holy mother church, as Christ’s bride, is not burdened by such legalistic deduction?

Don’t get me wrong. Of course- the clarification is not a problem. But the conclusions springing forth appear to be unfortunate overreactions.

There might be a plethora of people invalidly baptized and priests invalidly ordained in this cycle of perpetual invalidity?? To me this is an illogical overreaction and applies a false mechanism to the clarification.

No, it’s not overreaction. That is exactly what needed to be done.

Baptism is the gateway to all sacraments. The unbaptized cannot validly receive any other sacraments. This is Sacraments 101.

The priest who was invalidly baptized could not be validly confirmed or validly ordained. If he was not validly ordained, then he could not validly absolve or validly consecrate the Eucharist.

Yes, we trust that God can take care of those who are truly ignorant of their situation. But in this case, he gave this priest the grace of knowing, because the implications were that serious to the care of souls. He enabled this priest to find out, and get his situation rectified.

It is not “absurd legalism” when dealing with truth.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I get that the clarification was needed. But to conclude that there might be a plethora of invalidly baptized priests who need to be re-ordained? That seems illogical and an overreaction.

So are we to believe that all priests invalidly baptized must be re-ordained and therefore all of the sacraments and masses they celebrated were invalid?

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Excepting baptism and marriage, they are correct, because he was not validly ordained.

So do you conclude that there might hypothetically be swathes of priests invalidly baptized who are administering sacraments invalidly en masse across the world?

 

[ZemD]

So are we to believe that all priests invalidly baptized must be re-ordained and therefore all of the sacraments and masses they celebrated were invalid?

Yes. That is 100% correct with the exception of baptisms and marriages the priest performed.

 

[porthos11]

I get that the clarification was needed. But to conclude that there might be a plethora of invalidly baptized priests who need to be re-ordained? That seems illogical and an overreaction.

So are we to believe that all priests invalidly baptized must be re-ordained and therefore all of the sacraments and masses they celebrated were invalid?

Yes. Again. Sacraments 101. Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments.

That is precisely what is going to have to happen. If a man is unbaptized, he cannot be ordained. It is impossible.

What is not proven is that there is a “plethora” of unbaptized men invalidly ordained. From the looks of it, there was only one. But what he went through is exactly what needed to be done. He was not baptized. This means he was not a priest. He was not even ontologically a Christian.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

God may work outside of them

I think that this is the part which is being missed by many.

 

[CRV]

So are we to believe that all priests invalidly baptized must be re-ordained and therefore all of the sacraments and masses they celebrated were invalid?

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

If you learnt that as a result of this, you weren’t validly baptized nor were your mortal sins forgiven … … … wouldn’t you want to have the situation rectified?

As Baptism changes you into an adopted son/daughter of God, and Confession restores sanctifying grace to your soul after committing mortal sin. Without Baptism, participating in any other sacrament is not possible.

I don’t see it as an over reaction, nor I am sure do those in these situations.

Stating there is a plethora of invalidly baptized/ordained priests, imo, is a stretch of reality.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Yes. Again. Sacraments 101. Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments.

That is precisely what is going to have to happen. If a man is unbaptized, he cannot be ordained. It is impossible

I suppose I just find it hard to believe that this clarification’s implications would be applied in such a binary and retroactive manner.

 

[porthos11]

Fauken:

God may work outside of them

I think that this is the part which is being missed by many.

And you’re missing something really important. Sacraments are visible signs and they are real things. Baptism imprints a real character on the soul, as does ordination. The Eucharist is not some symbol; there is a very real change in the reality of what was bread and wine. Absolution has a very real effect on the soul of a sinner. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, does not qualify anybody for ordination, and kicks in only at death.

Sacraments are visible signs of these invisible realities. If one does not have the requisite characters, none of these come about. And even if God were to act outside of the sacraments, he has not revealed through Scripture or Tradition that he does. So when an invalidly ordained unbaptized man celebrates Mass in good faith, we absolutely zero assurance God consecrates the bread and wine, and we have absolutely zero assurance we’re not committing idolatry by worshipping a piece of bread.

And where is this “plethora” thing coming from, anyway. We’ve heard of exactly one case of a priest affected by this. One is not a “plethora”.

The validity of sacraments are not a matter of merely Church law; the form and matter are of divine law, which cannot be changed by man.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

Yes. Again. Sacraments 101. Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments.

That is precisely what is going to have to happen. If a man is unbaptized, he cannot be ordained. It is impossible

I suppose I just find it hard to believe that this clarification’s implications would be applied in such a binary and retroactive manner.

Why? This is what the Church teaches. This is why Archbishop Vigneron did exactly what he did.

Even without the clarification, invalid baptisms are invalid baptisms.

Do you presume to know something Archbishop Vigneron does not?

 

[Fauken]

I get that the clarification was needed. But to conclude that there might be a plethora of invalidly baptized priests who need to be re-ordained? That seems illogical and an overreaction.

Baptism is the gateway to all other Sacraments. Baptism is the beginning of Christian life. This is what the Church teaches.

So are we to believe that all priests invalidly baptized must be re-ordained and therefore all of the sacraments and masses they celebrated were invalid?

Correct.

So do you conclude that there might hypothetically be swathes of priests invalidly baptized who are administering sacraments invalidly en masse across the world?

I do, yes.

This is part of why it’s so important that the Sacraments be done correctly. The Sacraments are described as part of an “economy”, not lassiez-faire.

I think that this is the part which is being missed by many.

It’s not. We’re not talking about the Sacraments at that point, but God’s grace. God’s grace works in many ways, the Sacraments, while enabled by and wholly reliant on God’s grace, do not.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

If you learnt that as a result of this, you weren’t validly baptized nor were your mortal sins forgiven … … … wouldn’t you want to have the situation rectified?

Of course. I do not question the priests actions, nor the clarification itself- rather, the proposition that there is therefore an epidemic of invalidly baptized Catholics and clergy. It’s in the binary, sweeping and retroactive attributes some have applied to the clarification

Stating there is a plethora of invalidly baptized/ordained priests, imo, is a stretch of reality.

This is more so from the commentators I have watched. But I can see where they are coming from - “we” baptisms and other such liturgical abuses/faulty implementations have been abound for many a year.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I have stated already- I have no issues with the clarification, rather the interpretation of it.

 

[CRV]

Whilst we are aware currently of only one priest in this situation, I would think it is possible there is more. The 70’s were a wacky time in various parts of the world for one example of when things weren’t always done properly. I think it is entirely possible that there are more unfortunate souls who are invalidly baptized, due to the incorrect formula used - be that “we” or “name of the Creator etc”

Then if this individual then entered the priesthood …

The world is a big place, so I would think it is entirely possible, there are more priests unfortunately in this same situation. Though I would hope not many.

Council of Trent Session 7 Can. 4

CA - Sacraments Outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification

 

[Wesrock]

I have stated already- I have no issues with the clarification, rather the interpretation of it.

There’s really no gray area for interpretation here. The clarification necessitates the conclusion.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I do not disagree. What I think is absurd legalism is those who conclude that a preist who might have been invalidly baptized and must therefore be re-ordained, has been administering invalidly through his whole vocation , and saying invalid mass. Therefore his whole congregation has been deprived of the sacraments and mass thru his tenure. To me that does not follow. A binary interpretation does not seem prudent.

The clarification is needed. Of course. This is a truism. But the temptation to be legalistic about it must be tempered.

 

[Fauken]

The clarification is needed. Of course. This is a truism. But the temptation to be legalistic about it must be tempered.

There is no clarification needed. Canon law makes it quite clear that the validity of all other Sacraments rests on a valid baptism. Christian life begins at baptism. It does not make sense to be living other parts of it if you haven’t even been born (again) yet.

 

[CRV]

PART I. THE SACRAMENTS

Can. 840 The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church.

As actions of Christ and the Church, they are signs and means which express and strengthen the faith, render worship to God, and effect the sanctification of humanity and thus contribute in the greatest way to establish, strengthen, and manifest ecclesiastical communion. Accordingly, in the celebration of the sacraments the sacred ministers and the other members of the Christian faithful must use the greatest veneration and necessary diligence.

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 842 §1. A person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments.