Was my baptism invalid? CDF says "We Baptize" Invalid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was baptized as an infant. Two pastors at a Lutheran church officiated. They took turns pouring water over my head and one said “we baptize you in the name of the Father,” the other poured and said “and of the Son,” etc.

Is this valid? The Vatican came out and said this today.

https://m.ncregister.com/66139/d
 
Last edited:
Though not the number 1 route, would a baptism by faith be valid (if that’s a belief)? You certainly seem as if though you professed the Catholic Faith, so that could be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Funny, because in Eastern Catholicism there is neither “we” nor “I” - the Priest says “The servant of God [name] is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

And their baptisms are considered valid.

By the way, just my unsolicited 2 cents, I say your baptisms are valid and think the difference between “we” and “I” misses the point.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but would this only pertain to Baptisms done in the Catholic Church to begin with, not in other Chriatian communities?

The wording, at least to me, suggests that this was being done in cerain Catholic parishes for the sake of “inclusivity” and emphasis on the “priesthood of the people”.
I did not think that the Church would care how another Christian demonination handles the baptism, so long as the words “In the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit” were there.
We don’t make married converts Convalidate their lawful, valid marriages to conform to our Sacramental rules so why would we hold those Baptised in a Protestant community to a different standard?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have another source for this with more information?

I hope @CilladeRoma is right that this doesn’t apply to other denominations. How would you be able to track down or remember what was said if you were baptized in a Lutheran church as an infant?
 
CilladeRoma said:
I could be wrong, but would this only pertain to Baptisms done in the Catholic Church to begin with, not in other Chriatian communities?
Click to expand...
No.
CilladeRoma said:
I did not think that the Church would care how another Christian demonination handles the baptism, so long as the words “In the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit” were there.
Click to expand...
They most certainly do.
CilladeRoma said:
We don’t make married converts Convalidate their lawful, valid marriages
Click to expand...
Valid being the operative word.

A person in an invalid marriage would indeed need to become validly married.
CilladeRoma said:
to conform to our Sacramental rules
Click to expand...
A non-Catholic marriage that excluded fidelity, indissolubility and fecund is not valid.
 
StudentMI said:
I was baptized as an infant. Two pastors at a Lutheran church officiated. They took turns pouring water over my head and one said “we baptize you in the name of the Father,” the other poured and said “and of the Son,” etc.

Is this valid? The Vatican came out and said this today.
Click to expand...
It is doubtful. Speak to your pastor about it.
 
Oh I’m sorry, I wasn’t doubting you!

I was referencing my husband’s infant baptism - wondering if this decree could effect him if he’s unsure of the language that was used.
 
ZemD said:
Does anyone have another source for this with more information?
Click to expand...
Here’s the response to the dubia on the Vatican website:

https://press.vatican.va/content/sa...ubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein
ZemD said:
I hope @CilladeRoma is right that this doesn’t apply to other denominations.
Click to expand...
It applies to all baptisms, just as the dubia a number of years ago identified baptisms done in the name of the “creator, redeemer, sanctifier” formula was invalid.
 
Thank you. Looks like I will be calling our parish preist first thing tomorrow morning.
 
Did we read the same article?
The very first paragraph says changes to the formula,are not to be made. My take is that is the Church’s rubric for the Rite. That rubric would not apply to a Lutheran baptism. What the Church requires for a Protestant baptism to be valid is that it be Trinitarian in nature.

“The Vatican’s doctrinal office issued Thursday a clarification on the sacrament of baptism, stating changes to the formula to emphasize community participation are not permitted.”

And the article goes on to say the clatification is due to something that happened recently at an un-named parish.

So, I stand by my original post and will wait for more clarification from the Holy See or my Bishop/Pastor before I feed any panic.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
Did we read the same article?
The very first paragraph says changes to the formula,are not to be made.
Click to expand...
The Church rules on the validity of ALL baptism.

All baptisms must be in the correct formula.

That is why the Church has ruled on the validity of baptisms in various denominations.

See, for example, here:


Where the Church has ruled a denomination’s baptism valid, there may still be individual baptisms in that denomination that are invalid is the clergy person or other person baptizing does not use the valid formula.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
What the Church requires for a Protestant baptism to be valid is that it be Trinitarian in nature.
Click to expand...
More specifically it requires the Trinitarian Formula “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.“
 
I’m not a canonist, but I’m a Protestant minister and we’re trying to be careful that baptisms are celebrated in a canonically valid way, so that they have an ecumenical recognition.

I think the operative words here are “in name of the community” – I’d distinguish between the “we” of two concelebrants acting unambiguously as ministers of the sacrament and the “we” one single minister would say to implicate their whole community as co-celebrants of the baptism.

The communication I read on the ruling in French was more explicit. It said it was specifically a ruling on situations where the celebrant (not celebrants) said something like : “In the name of the dad and mom, of the godfather and godmother, of the grand-parents, of family members, of friends, in the name of our community, we baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

As far as I gather, the problem is when the “we” clearly goes against the fact that the celebrant of the sacraments acts in persona Christi, and makes him a “community spokesperson” instead.
 
OddBird said:
I think the operative words here are “in name of the community” – I’d distinguish between the “we” of two concelebrants acting unambiguously as ministers of the sacrament and the “we” one single minister would say to implicate their whole community as co-celebrants of the baptism.

The communication I read on the ruling in French was more explicit. It said it was specifically a ruling on situations where the celebrant (not celebrants ) said something like : “In the name of the dad and mom, of the godfather and godmother, of the grand-parents, of family members, of friends, in the name of our community, we baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Click to expand...
The problem is, that all of what you said above is not what the actual Q&A in the dubia response says.

Dubia response:
http://press.vatican.va/content/sal...ubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein

Pertinent part:
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formula
«We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit»

QUESTIONS

First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formula « We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit» is valid?

Second question: Whether those persons for whom baptism was celebrated with this formula must be baptized in forma absoluta ?

RESPONSES

To the first question : Negative.

To the second question : Affirmative.
Click to expand...
The same simple Q and A is present at the beginning of the Italian and French versions.

This to me is extremely clear. It is NOT limited to some special situation as you said. It says “We baptize” wording is not valid and someone who was baptized that way needs to be baptized again absolutely (not conditionally).

The doctrinal note to me doesn’t change this. I don’t think the Q&A can be somehow explained away or any argument can be made that “we baptize” can be set aside in some circumstances.
 
I see.

It is indeed much more strictly formulated than the doctrinal note.

I’ll have to make my colleagues aware of that, then, since concelebrating at baptisms is not unusual here (though not, as in the OP, with a shared pouring of the water).

Out of curiosity, does it ever happen that priests co-officiate at a baptism ? Would that kind of possibility be obvious when formulating the answer to the dubia, or is that a typically Protestant thing ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top