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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatienceAndHumility
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
porthos11 said:
If one does not have the requisite characters, none of these come about.
Click to expand...
Fauken said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate a definitive (and if possible, sourced) answer on this: how many mistakes are allowed in, for example, the baptism formula or the consecration of the Host? if the priest omits a syllable while preparing communion, would they be invalidated in your opinion?

If they are, it’s almost like some sort of magical incantation that has to be precise and exact 🤔
 
Last edited:
PatienceAndHumility said:
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.
Click to expand...
So do you believe that the Eucharist confected by such a priest contained the Real Presence of the Lord, despite the fact that the priest lacked valid ordination?

Or do you believe that the Real Presence wasn’t there, but yet the Lord supplied the graces to the faithful since they didn’t know otherwise?
 
ReaderT said:
I would appreciate a definitive (and if possible, sourced) answer on this: how many mistakes are allowed in, for example, the baptism formula or the consecration of the Host? if the priest omits a syllable while preparing communion, would they be invalidated in your opinion?

If they are, it’s almost like some sort of magical incantation that has to be precise and exact 🤔
Click to expand...
Syllables are one thing since they intend to say the proper words (although with baptism it would likely be redone, but that would be a question for the clergy). This is not the problem being discussed however. The Deacon changed a word in the baptismal formula.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
Syllables are one thing since they intend to say the proper words (although with baptism it would likely be redone, but that would be a question for the clergy). This is not the problem being discussed however. The Deacon changed a word in the baptismal formula.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your responses. You’re right that my question is not totally the same as what OP asked, but I think they’re related: if the deacon changed a syllable for whatever reason (I → we), what if someone changes another syllable (for example losing the -o in the Latin Rite “baptizo”). That also is not “done correctly” as Fauken said - so does it also become invalid?
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
if the deacon changed a syllable for whatever reason (I → we), what if someone changes another syllable (for example losing the -o in the Latin Rite “baptizo”). That also is not “done correctly” as Fauken said - does it become invalid?
Click to expand...
I would hardly call “I” to “we” a mere syllable change, especially when (if I remember correctly) this isn’t the only time the Deacon made such a “change”. That’s not a slip of the tongue like dropping the “o” in “baptizo” (which again, if such a mistake was made, I’d expect the priest/deacon to start all over again to make the “I/o” clear, but that’s for them to clarify).

EDIT: Just to check the Latin formula, I looked at my TLM missal, and it includes “Ego” in the baptismal formula: “Ego baptizo”. If the “o” was dropped, it would still be obvious that the priest was saying “I”. And I doubt he’d slip and say “Nos baptizmus”.
 
Last edited:
It does seem like legalism. The whole videotaped baptism thing with that priest is an unfortunate incident. But what is an alternative reaction? To just let it go? Then people will say ‘see, the ritual is not really important’, and the clarification would be practically meaningless.

I think this was a good opportunity for the Church to reaffirm the importance of having respect for something that some people may find difficult to accept. That something could be obedience to authority, humility, or order. All of those things play into this situation.

While I can sympathize with anyone who feels that the invalidation of this priest’s orders is legalistic I can’t think of another way to proceed without cheapening the Sacraments. I also trust that the CDF knows where to draw the line when a ritual doesn’t follow the letter of the law so to speak.
 
Last edited:
This is an argument some sedevacantists make about every priest ordained in the new form of the Sacraments since Vatican II (a proposition easily refuted by Traditional Catholics). This sort of thing does happen.
 
I was baptized and confirmed because of this fiasco. Not really seeing an overreaction.
 
I have heard of a situation wherein something is lacking in a liturgy and it is said that the Church supplies (ecclesia supplice) the grace to make up for the defect. It seems that this would be a good situation for that to happen. Why is it not being proposed as a solution to this conundrum?
 
Cactus said:
I have heard of a situation wherein something is lacking in a liturgy and it is said that the Church supplies (ecclesia supplice) the grace to make up for the defect. It seems that this would be a good situation for that to happen. Why is it not being proposed as a solution to this conundrum?
Click to expand...
The Church can supply jurisdiction that is lacking, but she cannot provide all the effects of a sacrament for someone who lacks it. Ecclesia supplet is not a magic bullet.
 
CRV said:
. 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.
Click to expand...
So, this is the conclusion which I am disputing. I am not disputing the clarification itself. Rather the deductions which follow it, for some.

I agree with you that in all likelihood, this particular error (using “we” instead of “I”) is a lot more widespread than one may initially think…
But by your reckoning, there are a whole host of priests invalidly ordained. Therefore all mass and sacraments which flowed forth from them are also invalid. This to me seems legalistic.
 
I suppose what I’m proposing is that too much weight is being put on the interpretation of the clarification. Imo, the CDF is clarifying what should be the ‘proforma’ baptismal rite wording (excuse my terminology).

So, yes- “we” baptisms are invalid. Clearly the logical conclusion. And yes, there might be priests who were invalidly ordained, and with proper (allowing for the risk of scrupulosity) discernment, might seek re-ordination.

But to my reckoning- it is a quantum leap to then propose that from this clarification we can justifiably assume that there are a whole swathe of priests invalidly ordained who in turn have been saying mass and administering sacraments invalidly.
 
Honestly, this whole situation manages to make me angry. It took the Vatican so long to rule on this and everyone now is doubting his/her own reception of the sacrament of baptism in his/her infancy.
 
Last edited:
PatienceAndHumility said:
But by your reckoning, there are a whole host of priests invalidly ordained.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how you came to that conclusion, as nothing I said indicated there are a whole host.

I did say that I could see how it is entirely possible that there are more. How many more people that were invalidly baptised and then became a priest? I think it is possible that this case isn’t the only one, but I do think the number would be very low. After all the number of baptised males that enter and become priests compared to those who don’t, suggests this number would be few.

God gave us the Sacraments under discussion - Baptism and Eucharist. Jesus gave us the formula Matthew 28:18-20 - baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

It is not being legalistic to do as commanded by and therefore being obedient to Jesus who is God.

God Himself has said what words are to be used. These words are not some formulary that men have come up with, which can be changed.

“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (bold and italic mine)
 
Last edited:
I agree with OP on this. I really don’t understand this. How can it be that a non-Catholic baptism is valid, as long as it is Trinitarian, but that a Catholic baptism is invalid if the priest gets one word wrong. (With all subsequent sacraments just wiped away.) That makes no sense to me, at all, and it seems like a kind of extreme legalism.
 
PatienceAndHumility said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what occurred.

The priest performed no valid sacraments other than baptisms and (possibly) marriages.

Therefore, no one received any sacraments.
 
TMC said:
How can it be that a non-Catholic baptism is valid, as long as it is Trinitarian, but that a Catholic baptism is invalid if the priest gets one word wrong.
Click to expand...
All baptisms, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are invalid if they lack proper form or matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top