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

[Fauken]

Then it is easy to know if the priest is doing it right or not. Don’t leggo my ego. Ha!

Sure. My point though is that if a priest or deacon wants to deviate from the formula, the language doesn’t matter. It’s simple to do in English and Latin. This Deacon didn’t listen when he was told to stop. Why would language stop him?

 

[MNathaniel]

Sorry to break it to you, if you were baptize with the formula “we baptize you” then you don’t need conditional baptism, you just need baptism. No need to add the words “if you haven’t been baptized already” to your baptism.

No worries mate. To clarify: my situation is unfortunately more complicated. Denomination permits both “I baptize” and “we baptize” language and cannot guarantee which was used in any specific case. In my case my minister is deceased and the minister who knew him and buried him says he wasn’t known to only do it one specific way.

It’d be easier if I just knew they did it wrong. Instead I have Schrödinger’s sacraments.

Genuinely might be valid.

Genuinely might not be valid.

Reason to doubt — but not reason to know.

 

[MarkRome]

I’d like to exhaust all official resources (including recourse to canon lawyers) before going beyond the official authorities within the Church.

You may have to. You have the right to appeal to the bishop, then the archbishop, and even the Vatican if it gets to that. It really gives me heartburn to think that a priest wouldn’t baptize you with the proper form.

 

[MarkRome]

In my case my minister is deceased and the minister who knew him and buried him says he wasn’t known to only do it one specific way.

My bad. You might have mentioned that. Then it would be conditional baptism. Don’t some Baptist groups baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? That also would be invalid.

 

[MNathaniel]

My bad. You might have mentioned that. Then it would be conditional baptism. Don’t some Baptist groups baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? That also would be invalid.

No worries, as all are noting, this general situation is a bit of a global mess. We’re all sort of sorting through it together.

I honestly feel fairly cheerful and calm about it so long as nobody’s obstructing the process of working through it. It’s potential obstructions (like people trying to convince others no problem exists to be solved) that distress me, not sincere exploration of different aspects of the topic.

In my case my childhood denomination (on the books at least) used the full Trinitarian formula, not the Baptist Jesus formula you reference. So on that front there’s not evidence for concern in my case.

The central evidence for concern in my case is the “we baptize” language being among the options they officially invite their ministers to whimsically choose from.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Because why ?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When Jesus sent out the disciples, they brought the Good News to the villages and towns according to what they experienced in Jesus Christ. At that time, there was no Church, no Bible.

Jump 2000 years ahead. If the person who brought the person the gospel while lacking the Holy Spirit and love of Christ, the person could be turned away rather than drawn into the Church,

Again, it’s God who draws a soul to himself and if God wants them to convert, they will hear the Gospel. If God wants them to follow another path because God knows the person better than anyone else, then so be it. In the end, it’s God who decides who’ll be saved, not us,

 

[Vico]

…
My reading of this and the source is that the repercussions of said priests re-ordination (and the validity of the masses/sacraments through his ministry) is in fact not a decided or clear matter…

Archbishop Allen H. Vignero was not indecisive.

 

[StudentMI]

Because my baptism and thus confirmation were deemed invalid by my parish priest and bishop per the CDF’s ruling.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So that was your situation.

However, others were not the same, providing that the person was Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

They’re no re-Baptized when the come into the Catholic Church

There is only one Baptism in Christ and as the Catechism says, Baptism is a sacrament of faith. Faith of the person being Baptized and the community welcoming them into the faith.

 

[StudentMI]

Well apparently the Pope and CDF disagree with you, so…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Disagree ?

The Church recognizes Baptisms in other denominations, providing that denomination the minster uses the names of the Holy Trinity. They don’t know if the minister used “we, or I” or some other format. As long as the words that the person was Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Generally, the person doing the Baptism would use “I Baptize you,” but not necessarily.

As it is, the Eastern Church uses a different format than the Church in the West.

 

[StudentMI]

The Church recognizes Baptisms in other denominations, providing that denomination the minster uses the names of the Holy Trinity.

I didn’t say different. But in my case the use of we was a problem, along with other factors. Fr. Hood’s example shows that we is invalid.

 

[MNathaniel]

The Church recognizes Baptisms in other denominations, providing that denomination the minster uses the names of the Holy Trinity.

Correction: Prior to the CDF ruling of 2020, the Church presumed the validity of baptisms across denominations that promised simply the use of the Trinitarian form and the matter of water.

Subsequent to this CDF ruling, I think it’s fair to say that there will be a shift in the default presumption of validity in cases where only that limited information (Trinitarian + water) is promised by the denomination in question.

Now that it is officially declared that “we baptize” invalidates, Protestant converts will need to not only consider whether their original baptism used Trinitarian language and water, but also whether the invalidating “we” language was used.

This topic is getting talked to death. I might suggest reading some of the existing thread posts on this (there are now multiple threads addressing this topic) before making further comments.

 

[CRV]

Jesus, according to your quote, did not use “We” but did not use “I” either.

Well, no, because it’s quoting what Jesus told the Apostles. As we know, not everything Jesus said has been recorded. Perhaps it was just understood that the Apostles would be saying “I baptize …” and so was not recorded explicitly when the Scripture was written.

Though I think it safe to say the Apostles imitated what Jesus said, as in John 3:22 we find that “After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” So we see that Jesus did perform baptisms and I’m sure He would have said “I baptize…”.

It is interesting that the CCC #1240 mentions what words are to be used in the Eastern Liturgies -" 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again."

Baptism from Catholic Encyclopedia covers the institution of and form of the Sacrament.

 

[Vico]

…
So we see that Jesus did perform baptisms and I’m sure He would have said “I baptize…”.

In the Doctrinal Note for the dubium, the CDF states, regarding the non-Catholic formula:

“the deliberate modification of the sacramental formula was introduced to emphasize the communitarian significance of Baptism, in order 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 that the formula in the Rituale Romano might seem to imply”.

And

“when one baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes… the Lord has the principal role in the event being celebrated.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium )

 

[Isearch]

Correction: Prior to the CDF ruling of 2020 , the Church presum ed the validity of baptisms across denominations that promised simply the use of the Trinitarian form and the matter of water.

Subsequent to this CDF ruling, I think it’s fair to say that there will be a shift in the default presumption of validity in cases where only that limited information (Trinitarian + water) is promised by the denomination in question.

I do not think we can hold to what I just highlighted in your post. What the Church permits must be protected by, at least, infallible safety (the doctrine that all that the Church permits, proposes, and institutes cannot possibly lead one to damnation).

You have to know that one must possess perfect charity to accompany one’ s desire for baptism in order for him/her to be cleansed of both Original Sin and mortal sins before his/her reception of the sacrament of baptism. And it would be presumtuous to hold that every unbaptized who desires baptism already has perfect charity. Though obviously there are some individuals who are indisputably in this category (e.g. the unbaptized Christian martyrs).

The only way we can explain this current problem is to accept that not all who administer the sacraments are obedient to the books.

 

[Anesti33]

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Baptism is valid if the sacrament is confected according to valid matter, form, intent, and subject. The sacrament works ex opere operato, regardless of the disposition of the subject.

If someone lacks perfect charity, then baptism may not yet be efficacious, and graces are withheld, until such time as perfect charity is achieved. This does not affect the immediate validity of baptism and the conferral of its other effects, such as incorporating the person into the Body of Christ. Once again, this occurs with a valid sacrament, regardless of the disposition of the subject.

 

[Fauken]

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

Sure. My point though is that if a priest or deacon wants to deviate from the formula, the language doesn’t matter. It’s simple to do in English and Latin. This Deacon didn’t listen when he was told to stop. Why would language stop him?

Correcting this post. I have not found a source saying the Deacon in question ignored being told to stop using “we”, so it is wrong of me to say he didn’t stop. That being said, my point about someone wanting to disobey doing they’re told still stands. If they don’t want to do what they’re being told to do, language will not stop them.

 

[Isearch]

Baptism is valid if the sacrament is confected according to valid matter, form, intent, and subject. The sacrament works ex opere operato , regardless of the disposition of the subject.

Agreed.

If someone lacks perfect charity, then baptism may not yet be efficacious, and graces are withheld, until such time as perfect charity is achieved. This does not affect the immediate validity of baptism and the conferral of its other effects, such as incorporating the person into the Body of Christ. Once again, this occurs with a valid sacrament, regardless of the disposition of the subject.

This is false. While it is true that imperfect Charity does not remove Original Sin and mortal sins by itself, it does dispose the person to be receptive of the sacrament of baptism, which does remove all sins prior.

Perfect charity, on the other hand, which necessarily includes perfect contrition, removes OS and all MSs even before the reception of any sacrament. Pope St. Pius V condemned the error that the state having the penalty of damnation can exist in a person with perfect charity.