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 doubt you would have priests, or a priest and deacon, co-officiating baptisms nowadays because we simply don’t have enough clergy to go around that we can send two of them to do one baptism. However, even if there were two clergy, the dubia response seems to say pretty flatly that “We” is wrong (Same for one priest using “We” in the sense of the “Royal We”, which Fr Z notes in his latest blog post the Doctrinal Note did not address). I think it’s generally a bad idea for priests to deviate in any way from the language in the book. As a lawyer I would say that creates risks.

The proper way to do the baptism in the case of two clergy would be for one clergy to actually do the baptism. Maybe the other one could hold the baby or give a blessing after or something. But they shouldn’t be trying to both baptize the same person together or do a tag team tradeoff.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The proper way to do the baptism in the case of two clergy would be for one clergy to actually do the baptism. Maybe the other one could hold the baby or give a blessing after or something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s how it’s done here in such cases.

But I can recall a few occasions when the one baptizing did say “we baptise you…”

Come to think of it, I’m not even sure I never did that myself 😱
 
1ke said:
There is no rubric for that as with concelebrating mass.
Click to expand...
This explains that, then.

Which means that we who work for non-Catholic denominations will have to be particularly careful, especially during these big baptism/confirmation ceremonies where there are dozens of kids being baptized or confirmed, and 4 or 5 ministers officiating.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The proper way to do the baptism in the case of two clergy would be for one clergy to actually do the baptism.
Click to expand...
We actually run into this occasionally now because my brother in law is a priest and our parish always asks if he wants to participate in our kids’ sacraments. When my 2 year old was baptized there were about 5 babies in that service. Our deacon was the officiant for the whole service and did the baptisms for the other babies. My brother in law did the baptism (the actual pouring of the water piece) for our baby. That way there was no confusion as to who baptized each child and no concern about the wording.
 
I’m not sure how you mean it, since tone doesn’t carry over in writing, but just in case, I’ll explain:

As you may know, I’m on my way to Rome but I am, for now, a Reformed minister. I work in a part of the world where Reformed and Catholic Christians make out about equal parts of the population.

We (as in the local Reformed church) are committed to celebrate our baptisms in a form which is recognized as valid by the Catholic Church, as there is a really good chance that the little ones we baptise may end up marrying a Catholic (or converting).

So, yes, such rulings have consequences for us too.
 
I spoke with my preist this morning. He had already read the document and said if anything was used in place of “I baptize” the baptism is invalid regardless of the denomination.

My husband will recieve a conditional baptism as he was baptized in a Lutheran church and unsure of the wording used. @StudentMI if you are certian “we baptize” was used in your baptism according to my priest you would need to be baptized as the first was invalid.
 
StudentMI said:
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.
Click to expand...
The “we” appears to refer to the 2 pastors. This seems fairly remote from the sense in which “we” is being used in the various examples given in the article and to which the church takes exception.
 
Rau said:
The “we” appears to refer to the 2 pastors. This seems fairly remote from the sense in which “we” is being used in the various examples given in the article and to which the church takes exception.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Regardless I spoke with a priest today who said let’s see what my parish priest thinks and then proceed from there. He said it sounded more like a partial baptism then a full one.
 
I’d honestly never heard of that formula being used until now. Best advice I can give is, if at all possible, talk to your pastor.
 
Hello! I am a convert to Catholicism who has revisited the question of baptism with my RCIA director multiple times. There are two things to consider here, and which should be discussed with your priest.

The first is that canon law on baptism puts the burden of proof on the candidate to establish doubt (Canon 869). “Doubt” in this context is more than a passing concern, and typically requires some evidence in the form of writing that the baptism was invalid. In my case I had to inquire at the church I had been baptized in and have received confirmation from them in writing that they use the formula “We baptize…” regularly, although I have not heard back from my parish about their opinion.

The second thing that should be considered is that due to the situation, as long as you have prudently inquired and are reasonably certain about your baptism, then you are probably not guilty of sin for receiving other sacraments even if in reality your baptism is invalid, because ignorance mitigates the seriousness of your offence.

As to the certainty of your salvation in the case of a doubtful baptism, especially if your priest will not perform a conditional baptism, I would encourage you to diligently pray and to fast. it is certainly a doctrine of the church that those who die with an explicit desire for baptism but for reasons beyond their control were incapable of achieving the light of the Illumination through regeneration, are granted its grace in their final hours and are not prevented from sharing in the Beatific Vision. However, it would be a sorrowful thing and should not be your first recourse.

I hope that the Lord’s peace abides in you and your family, particularly in regards to this difficult question.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your kind words to Agatha and myself.

All I can say for myself is that I’m not participating in confession or receiving the Eucharist until this is sorted out.
 
Same here, unfortunately. I am praying for a prompt response from my church!
 
StudentMI said:
Thank you for your kind words to Agatha and myself.

All I can say for myself is that I’m not participating in confession or receiving the Eucharist until this is sorted out.
Click to expand...
Who has told you that you should be deprived of grace in this manner?
 
NSmith said:
As to the certainty of your salvation in the case of a doubtful baptism, especially if your priest will not perform a conditional baptism,
Click to expand...
If a priest absolutely wouldn’t do it despite someone’s reasonably founded worry about it, that would seem to me to be an emergency where any Catholic could step in and take care of the problem by baptizing the person. I realize some might not agree with that, but if you make a good faith effort to get help from priests and they don’t help you, then someone need not be subjected to a life of doubt when this is a sacrament any Catholic with a glass of water can confer.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Thanks. But what about confirmation?
Click to expand...
The Holy See has not said that a “wrong” baptism invalidates someone’s later confirmation in good faith. Nor has it said that those with a “wrong” baptism need to get re-confirmed after being re-baptized.
 
Last edited:
That’s true. Interesting… I’ll have to think about this.
 
Parish priest still hasn’t responded. He can take a few days to get back. I see him tomorrow at my dad’s confirmation. I’ll ask him about it then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top