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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m pretty sure that somewhere out there in this wide world is a Catholic priest who is a convert and recalls that he long ago had one of these “we” baptisms. I doubt that the Church will be pulling Father from his parish and making him have a do-over ordination because his baptism is antecedent to Holy Orders as well as everything else.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s exactly what would have to happen. If one is not baptized, then he cannot be ordained. If the baptism was done invalidly, then the Ordination wouldn’t have been possible. So yeah, confirmation and ordination would have to be repeated for one whose baptism was found to be invalid.

-Fr ACEGC
 
I think you touched upon it excellently.

As a matter of perspective, it’s helpful to note that in Christian antiquity, the standard of validity for baptisms was, in fact, very low. The 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople recognised as valid the baptisms of eight or so different heretical/schismatic groups, including Arians.
 
Last edited:
Father, I have to ask. Why are some priests apparently so against the idea of conditional baptism? Is it ecumenism?
 
I don’t know. I can only speak for this priest.

I can tell you that the way the law envisions it, conditional baptism is an absolute last resort. If we believe in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” and we acknowledge the validity of baptisms other than those done by Catholic ministers, then it would undermine our theology of baptism to start conditionally baptising everyone. So maybe not ecumenism so much as respect for the sacrament, wherever it may be found.

-Fr ACEGC
 
edward_george1 said:
Actually, that’s exactly what would have to happen. If one is not baptized, then he cannot be ordained. If the baptism was done invalidly, then the Ordination wouldn’t have been possible. So yeah, confirmation and ordination would have to be repeated for one whose baptism was found to be invalid.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, how would the RC church view all the sacraments he performed up to that point - the confessions, the marriages, the eucharists…? I assume they would also have to be invalid, because “the ordination wouldn’t have been possible”?
 
Last edited:
I think that this is an admirable view, if it is true that the conditional baptism undermines the theology of one baptism. I however consider the conditional baptism to be a greater respect for one baptism than making presumptions about the validity of baptisms for which there is reasonable doubt about either the form, matter, or intent of the sacrament. The conditional baptism expresses the seriousness with which the Church views baptism as the entry to the Christian life, and it provides the perfect occasion to teach a candidate about the theology of the one baptism.
Furthermore, insisting upon certain essentials for the sacrament, such as the Trinitarian formula as the CDF has clarified, places the Church more firmly on the grounds of One Baptism, because it rebukes the many varieties and alterations that have been unjustly applied to the sacrament by heretics.
However, I am not a theologian or a priest, and I respect that you have thought about the matter and arrived at your own judgement.
 
ReaderT said:
Out of curiosity, how would the RC church view all the sacraments he performed up to that point - the confessions, the marriages, the eucharists…? I assume they would also have to be invalid, because “the ordination wouldn’t have been possible”?
Click to expand...
Geez I didn’t think about that.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas on why the pronoun matters in this case:

Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing the action.

On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be [baptized] at the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one [baptism]. But it would be [necessary], in that case, to say: “I [baptize] ye.” Nor would this be a change of form, because “ye” is the same as “thee and thee.” Whereas “we” does not mean “I and I,” but “I and thou”; so that this would be a change of form.

Likewise it would be a change of form to say, “I [baptize] myself”: consequently no one can [baptize] himself. For this reason did [Christ] choose to be [baptized] by John.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article6
 
Baptisms would still be valid.
Confirmations would not.
Masses would not.
Anointings would not.
Confessions would not.
Marriages actually could be, given that even a layman can be delegated to witness a marriage, since in western reckoning it isn’t the priestly blessing that is constitutive of marriage. If the marriages weren’t valid, that would be easily remedied by radical sanation.
 
Wondering then (just as an intellectual or theological exercise) what would be the status of a marriage by the justice of the peace of a “Catholic” whose baptism was later determined thus to be invalid and a validly baptized non-Catholic, both otherwise free to marry. Invalid for lack of form? Valid but natural? Or…?

(Gentle scorn graciously accepted. I debated whether or not to ask 😊
 
Oh no.

Father, please advise. I just looked into the old Protestant denomination I was baptized into as a baby. And in their current handbook on the formula for baptism this is the verbatim instructed language given to those who would baptize:
N.,
I baptize you,
or we baptize you,
or you are baptized,

in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Click to expand...
Should I approach my priest to ask for a conditional baptism and conditional confirmation? He refused me a conditional baptism when I first converted because my denomination is technically on the ecumenical ‘good’ list. But here their handbook literally permits ministers to perform baptisms using language the Vatican just declared makes a baptism invalid.
 
Thanks for correcting me, Father.
I presume all the sacraments the priest previously gave in good faith before this came up are valid then?

And why doesn’t the Vatican give clearer guidance for what people should do if they suspect they or their kids are in this bad situation?

Also, do people in this situation who were married in the Church thinking their baptism was okay have to do anything regarding their marriages, or does the sacramental grace simply flow to the marriage once they get baptized properly? My husband was a Presbyterian, I presume from what I read they used the right formula (although it was sprinkle rather than pour or dunk but in those days the Church would accept sprinkle). If they somehow didn’t then it’s too late for me to fix it now as he’s dead, but I would hate to think we somehow never had a sacramental marriage.

I don’t understand why the chiefs in charge at the Vatican don’t issue some guidance about how people should deal with this new bombshell rather than just drop it on well-meaning folks and give them something else to worry about in times when everybody’s nerves are already on edge. It’s a failure of leadership.
 
Last edited:
🤔

A “partial baptism”? 😱 I never heard of such a thing. One is or is not baptized, just like one is or is not married.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Thanks for correcting me, Father.
I presume all the sacraments the priest previously gave in good faith before this came up are valid then?
Click to expand...
He actually answered that most sacraments would not be, including Confession - which I assume in Catholic thinking would pose a great problem for those in unabsolved mortal sin (but who think they are absolved).

Actually, what happens to those people then? They are in unabsolved mortal sin because their priest wasn’t validly baptized, what if they die?
 
Last edited:
IIRC, pre-VII, Protestants were always conditionally baptized upon coming into the Catholic Church. (I forget where I read that.)
 
That seems to be the case. On the one hand I’m glad they settled this but on the other, holy cow.
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
Actually, what happens to those people then? They are in unabsolved mortal sin because their priest wasn’t validly baptized, what if they die?
Click to expand...
The confessions they made to this priest were objectively not valid, but God isn’t going to hold that against them. While we would say that the sacrament didn’t take place, that doesn’t mean they weren’t forgiven. They would be well advised to seek out another priest and make a general Confession, just to hedge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top