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

[Isearch]

Denzinger # 1070 (old numbering). The 70th error of Michael du Bai.

 

[Isearch]

I was saying it was the 70th of the 79 condemned propositions of Michael du Bai that were listed in Denzinger.

 

[Isearch]

I edited my post to clarify what I meant.

 

[irishcolleen45]

I’ve read that Fr Hood’s Baptism was invalid. My question is why isn’t Baptism of desire not considered in this instance? His parents wanted him baptized.

Thanks.

 

[Anesti33]

I’ve read that Fr Hood’s Baptism was invalid. My question is why isn’t Baptism of desire not considered in this instance? His parents wanted him baptized.

Thanks.

It might be enough to send him to Heaven, but it is not sufficient to miraculously create valid sacraments where there are none to be had.

 

[MNathaniel]

I’ve read that Fr Hood’s Baptism was invalid. My question is why isn’t Baptism of desire not considered in this instance? His parents wanted him baptized.

Thanks.

Basically my understanding is that Baptism of Desire kicks in at death.

Otherwise every catechumen who desires baptism enough to seek it would count as already baptized by that desire. But if they’re already baptized by their desire they don’t need to keep seeking the thing they desire because they already have it.

So suddenly no one would get baptized by water anymore because desire itself would be understood to convey the sacramental grace at the moment the desire begins to exist.

But that’s not what the Church teaches. Catechumens who desire baptism still have to seek and receive baptism by water assuming they don’t die first – and they may not receive other sacraments until after this baptism by water.

It’s just the “dying first” part where Baptism of Desire is believed to kick in. Similar to Baptism of Blood. But it’s not held to kick in retroactively: it kicks in at the moment of death, basically.

So since Fr. Hood might have had Baptism of Desire kick in at the moment of his death if he died before receiving water Baptism (and thereby Fr. Hood’s soul might have gone to heaven), that would have done nothing retroactively to make his baptism valid from infancy, and if his baptism wasn’t valid before his ordination his ordination wasn’t valid, and if his ordination wasn’t valid he could never have validly absolved sins in Confession or confected the Eucharist… etc.

 

[Bithynian]

The Didache says nothing on the I vs We issue, and has various differences with what we do today.

Most liturgical and sacramental forms tended to be very localised in the first five centuries. St Basil, in his 145th homily, recites the baptismal creed as expected of catechumens in his diocese, and then says βαπτίζομεν εἰς Τρίαδα ὁμοούσιον baptizomen eis triada homoousion ‘we baptise into the consubstantial Trinity’. But it’s uncertain if this is the actual form that was used in 4th century Caesarea, or if St Basil was just being broadly descriptive of baptism in general.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Basically my understanding is that Baptism of Desire kicks in at death.

This is correct. If Fr Hood had died, perhaps without even knowing his baptism was invalid if he hadn’t had a video of the event, then he would have been covered by Baptism of Desire.

However, while Fr Hood is alive, water baptism is necessary if he is going to receive the further sacraments of Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, which also allows him to transmit sacraments to others. Baptism of desire is not sufficient to provide the basis for those. The reasoning being that if you are in a position to receive all those other sacraments, you could surely receive a water baptism first; you’re not being prevented in some way from being water baptized, like still being a catechumen, or being locked in a prison with no Catholics around.

 

[AlbMagno]

So, there is a possibility that some Patristic Saints baptized invalidly? The CDF statement seems to be retroactive…

 

[Bithynian]

there is a possibility that some Patristic Saints baptized invalidly?

It could be a possibility, but it’s something for which we have so little evidence that it’s all very speculative. But this is quite normal, and there are other incongruous Patristic statements about baptism: St Ambrose (I think in De Sancto Spiritu) wrote something along the lines of ‘if you’ve named one person of the Trinity, you’ve named them all’ and this has caused consternation as to whether he’s talking about the baptismal form.