Should all men presenting for ordination be conditionally baptised?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
So I watched the video link in another thread of an atheist recounting the story of the priest who turned out not to be a priest because the person who baptised him had said ‘We baptise…’ instead of ‘I baptise…’. I, like him, found the story startling and worth retelling. But I don’t take his obvious pleasure in it - many people must have been really distressed.

However, in watching it I realised that all this could have been avoided if those being ordained were routinely conditionally baptised.

Why not?
 
Last edited:
I personally think people should be conditionally baptized upon entering the Church. Why not? Some false sense of ecumenism?
 
Pre-VII, most non-Catholics entering the Church (except maybe the Orthodox) were conditionally baptized iirc.
 
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

It is not prudent to foster a distrust for the Sacraments such that would stem from a “routine” conditional baptism of all sorts of ordinands. Investigate a baptism the proper way, with a certificate and witnesses and affidavits if need be. Don’t assume a doubtful sacrament without proof! There lies madness! I can’t think of much else more damaging to newly-minted priests than having them go out into the world with the knowledge that TPTB harbored significant doubt about the validity of their sacraments of initiation.
 
Last edited:
What if their (very private and discreet) pre-ordination conditional baptisms are alleged to be invalid, what transpires then? I can envision a kind of baptismal Inception going on here.
 
I don’t think you guys understand the nature of conditional baptism. It is not simply something thrown around on a whim. Its use is restricted to very serious circumstances. No bishop would authorize something like this.
 
StudentMI said:
I personally think people should be conditionally baptized upon entering the Church. Why not? Some false sense of ecumenism?
Click to expand...
In the case of the priest in question, this wouldn’t have happened as he was baptized by a Catholic deacon if I remember.

I was baptized by a Presbyterian minister at 16 and distinctly remember being baptized with the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost“ so I should have had a conditional baptism (despite the fact that I know it is 100% valid), but we can assume that all Catholic baptisms are correct (despite evidence to the contrary)? Hence all candidates for ordination would need conditional baptism.

The issue is less a matter of ecumenism than it is a sacramental theology question. Can we trust that the sacraments happened and if not what is the fall out if we can’t? Should all confirmandi also be conditionally baptized before receiving confirmation? How about before marriage? If not, then do we just assume that all marriages should be considered non-sacramental?

We start going down a huge rabbit hole when we start assuming every previous sacrament is invalid without incontrovertible proof. If you follow that hole deep enough you could say we no longer can assume we have valid Holy Orders because we cannot prove beyond a doubt that a handful of bishops 1000 years ago were not properly baptized and apostolic succession died out with their consecrators.

I get the angst that this has caused, but I suspect it is a relatively rare occurrence in mainstream Christian communities. Maybe it occurs more frequently today, but it should be treated like marriage where it is assumed to be valid unless there is founded grounds for doubt.
 
Usige said:
In the case of the priest in question, this wouldn’t have happened as he was baptized by a Catholic deacon if I remember.
Click to expand...
Yeah, absent video or recorded evidence showing that a Catholic priest or deacon messed up, the Church is not going to re-baptize cradle Catholics who were baptized as babies or young children just on the off chance that the priest or deacon did it wrong. I am sure that going forward, based on these incidents, prospective priests will be aware of the need to check any recording or video or other documentation of their baptisms as carefully as possible. However, if there is no evidence to the contrary, the Church presumption of validity would apply, which makes sense as we should be able to trust our own clergy to by and large baptize babies properly.

Whether those converting from Protestant faiths with alleged Trinitarian baptisms should be conditionally baptized is a different matter, and one in which I think the Church should consider a more liberal use of conditional baptism since the odds are much higher that the original baptism was defective in some way.
 
Last edited:
Usige said:
We start going down a huge rabbit hole when we start assuming every previous sacrament is invalid without incontrovertible proof. If you follow that hole deep enough you could say we no longer can assume we have valid Holy Orders because we cannot prove beyond a doubt that a handful of bishops 1000 years ago were not properly baptized and apostolic succession died out with their consecrator
Click to expand...
Good point. What reason do we have to suppose that say in the year 500 individuals were properly baptised on their way to becoming bishops?
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
In the modern world we have video cameras we can use to record permanent ceremonies.
Click to expand...
Guess again. Video cameras have indeed been around for some considerable time in our modern world - only problem is the format and medium for recording has changed just a tad over the time we’ve had them. Sure there’s still a handful of VHS players around (Beta not so much) but that’s not much help if the tape hasn’t survived. DVDs are fast heading in the same direction along with BluRay and I’m not sure anyone even remembers HD DVD!
MNathaniel said:
But the truth seems, to me, that at least until the generations have moved past the crop of adults who were baptized during the widespread “we baptize” fad of a certain time period, I concur with the assessment that a simple conditional sacrament is reasonable and will not remotely prompt psychological breakdown in any rational adult
Click to expand...
Realistically this involves a very limited time period affecting a small number of people (of whom only a fraction would be ordained) and is largely confined to certain places and only one Rite. AFIK there have only been two priests whose ordination was affected by this problem, compared with the significantly greater number ordained worldwide. Yet you would have every ordinand in every country conditionally baptised (and confirmed). Good luck with that.

That same logic - assuming invalidity based solely on the fact that a sacrament was administered during a particular time period - would also call into question the validity of other sacraments, such as Holy Orders, since we can’t be completely sure the proper formula was used and there were some weird idea floating around for a while.

We presume, shockingly perhaps, that priests (and deacons) will actually do and say what they’re supposed to when administering a sacrament since this is what they in fact do (occasional exceptions aside). This is also why we recognise the validity of (some) baptisms in other Christian denominations - where there’s a set formula and method we expect that it was actually followed (after all that’s sort of the purpose in having it in the first place). Of course that recognition can change if there’s evidence of widespread departure or freewheeling. This isn’t about ecumneical niceities (since after all we don’t recognise other sacraments) it’s just plain common sense.

Sacraments are administered without issue all the time - I did a baptism a couple of weeks ago and I’ve got another scheduled for a couple of week’s time. I use the proper formula; as does every other priest I know. Yes, mistakes and stuff ups happen; every now and again somebody gets a bright idea and goes off on a jolly of their own. Sure it’s messy and has to be cleaned up but it’s dealt with and everyone concerned moves on. The Church has been baptising people for almost 2000 years, largely without issue. There’s no reason why a couple of isolated foul ups should cause anyone to question their faith or their trust in the Church.
 
InThePew said:
Realistically this involves a very limited time period affecting a small number of people (of whom only a fraction would be ordained) and is largely confined to certain places and only one Rite.
Click to expand...
Has this been investigated, or is it an assumption?
 
FiveLinden said:
Has this been investigated, or is it an assumption?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how it would be investigated. Again, the Church presumes that priests and deacons actually do and say what they’re supposed to. To somehow try and investigate every single baptism - even just those performed during a particular time period in a particular diocese would not just be a massive logistical exercise, it would also be an incredibly disproportionate response. Granted, we might wonder if there are any other incidences out there (which why the CDF and the dioceses in question issued public statements) but it makes no sense to somehow investigate in order to find something when there’s no evidence that it exists.
 
InThePew said:
it makes no sense to somehow investigate in order to find something when there’s no evidence that it exists.
Click to expand...
Well, we know it exists. I was asking about evidence relating to its extent. I imagine that the overwhelming majority, or even all, existing priests/deacons would happily answer an email survey. And I imagine most former priests/deacons would do so also. For a diocese with 1000 priests the cost would be well under $US10k for the initial results. After that there might be no need to do more but if so of course costs would be greater. At least then there would be some evidence rather than anecdote.
 
MNathaniel said:
But the truth seems, to me, that at least until the generations have moved past the crop of adults who were baptized during the widespread “we baptize” fad of a certain time period
Click to expand...
How “widespread” was this fad? While I am pretty sure the video referred to by the OP claims it, I’ve no reason to believe the statement is any more accurate than some of the others it asserts.

I had children baptized during “a certain time period” and have no recollection of these shenanigans?
 
Sorry but I don’t understand what the response of the Congregation has to do with my question.
 
FiveLinden said:
Sorry but I don’t understand what the response of the Congregation has to do with my question.
Click to expand...
It is just a reference for those not knowing about the dubium.

The US Catholic particular law for Conditional Baptism of those seeking reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church states, "If Conditional Baptism then seems necessary, this must be celebrated privately rather than at a public liturgical assembly of the community and with only those limited rites which the diocesan bishop determines. "

Of course, that conditional baptism might also have in it the erroneous formula “We baptize …” so it could also be invalid.
 
Last edited:
Titivillus said:
How “widespread” was this fad?
Click to expand...
I doubt it was either “widespread” or a “fad”. It was a case of a few clergy getting carried away with putting things into their own words. There are plenty of priests and deacons who would have continued to use the words as written in the book.
 
MNathaniel said:
But sure, dismiss the problem as probably just “isolated”.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is the overwhelming attitude I’ve seen with regards to this issue. I was blessed to have a priest and bishop who took it seriously in my case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top