My understandIng is that the emboldened words were indeed used in the apparently invalid baptism. Jesus, according to your quote, did not use “We” but did not use “I” either.“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)
Especially since the opposite is often true (especially in the separated East). The East is hyper-serious about following their rites to the letter (a good thing usually, although it can go too far, examples below) while they are more flexible in theology and morals, especially the separated Easterners. An Eastern clergyman rightly wouldn’t dare to make changes like this in the first place. In the separated East, they are more likely to “give” on moral issues in a spirit of economia (which should only apply to ecclesiastical canons, not the moral law) but would never accept deviation in their rites.I’m sorry, but saying we care about the letter of the law over its spirit is denigrating.
(the earlier Old Believer schism over a few words and gestures is another example).The second characteristic, a corollary of the first, is the intense conservatism of all these bodies. They cling fanatically to their rites, even to the smallest custom — because it is by these that the millet is held together. Liturgical language is the burning question in the Balkans. They are all Orthodox, but inside the Orthodox Church, there are various milal — Bulgars, Vlachs, Serbs, Greeks, whose bond of union is the language used in church. So one understands the uproar made in Macedonia about language in the liturgy; the revolution among the Serbs of Uskub in 1896, when their new metropolitan celebrated in Greek (Orth. Eastern Church, 326); the ludicrous scandal at Monastir, in Macedonia, when they fought over a dead man’s body and set the whole town ablaze because some wanted him to be buried in Greek and some in Rumanian (op. cit., 333). The great and disastrous Bulgarian schism, the schism at Antioch, are simply questions of the nationality of the clergy and the language they use.
Even marriage may be invalid for an eastern Catholic since the priest must bless the eastern Catholic marriage for validity. See the article from America The Jesuit Review – pertaining to Fr. Hood in the Archdiocese of Detroit:… Excepting baptism and marriage, they are correct, because he was not validly ordained. …
Although Father Hood was not able to validly perform some marriages, celebrate Mass, grant absolution, administer confirmation or anoint the sick, any baptisms he performed are presumed valid, since a priest is not required to baptize so long as the correct formula, matter and intention are present, said Father Stephen Pullis, director of evangelization and missionary discipleship for the archdiocese.
I absolutely agree that this is Rome’s decision, but as to your question, the oldest form of baptism we have recorded is in the Didache. The Didache says nothing on the I vs We issue, and has various differences with what we do today.My understandIng is that the emboldened words were indeed used in the apparently invalid baptism. Jesus, according to your quote, did not use “We” but did not use “I” either.
It is, of course, entirely up to Rome to decide what is recognised as the appropriate sacramental form. But has the form used in all sacraments remained unchanged since the time of Christ?
This was what happened in my case. I was baptized by two Lutheran pastors.All baptisms, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are invalid if they lack proper form or matter.
May I ask where you (and others) may be getting this false information from?The problem I have with this level of pettiness is that the Church recognizes the Baptisms of converts from other denominations, providing that they were Baptized with the words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Right. So, for all we know, some priest 100 years ago (or a thousand) messed up a bunch of baptisms, and a bunch of those folks become priests, maybe a bishop, and so all the baptisms and confirmations and ordinations from those people are invalid, and all Sacraments from any priests in that batch are invalid, and so on, such that by now there are a untold thousands (millions) of invalid Catholics wandering around. Does that seem right? Or is Luke 11:9-13 relevant?In fact, had there been no video, this story would never have come about and the priest would’ve gone on with his service to Christ and His Church.
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.
Leaving side the fact that most people here aren’t putting estimated numbers on the potential scope of the problem (so you’re slightly strawmanning here)… It sounds to me like you’re both making some kind of appeal to the problem of evil.So, for all we know, some priest 100 years ago (or a thousand) messed up a bunch of baptisms, and a bunch of those folks become priests, maybe a bishop, and so all the baptisms and confirmations and ordinations from those people are invalid, and all Sacraments from any priests in that batch are invalid, and so on, such that by now there are a untold thousands (millions) of invalid Catholics wandering around. Does that seem right?
That’s begging the question, not arguing for your conclusion. That’s exactly what the CDF just said isn’t the case: “we” is another important thing, in terms of being a factor that invalidates.But no one would know for sure. The important thing for the Church is that the person is Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…
No, the CDF hasn’t ruled against the traditional eastern language (“N., you are baptized…”), only against the newly innovated: “N., we baptize you…”As it is, there are different words used in the East than in the West, are those Baptisms now invalid ?
I think it’s safe to say we can all agree this is a mess.It’s relatively recently that people began video taping Baptisms.
When I was Baptized, it was before Vatican II and the priest would’ve used Latin.
Did he say the words in Latin correctly ? Who knows ?
As it was, the mothers weren’t even allowed at their infant’s Baptism.