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

[edward_george1]

Only if you are sure that your baptism wasn’t done validly. If there is someone who witnessed it who can tell you that it was done properly, no need to worry.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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).

God is not going to hold sins against people who believed in good faith that they were absolved, regardless of whatever the situation with the priest was. (I’m sure scrupulous people will probably lay awake worrying about it though.)
In this case, God wouldn’t even hold it against the priest for any confessions he heard prior to the Vatican announcement.

The question I’m more concerned with is whether all the consecrations of Holy Eucharist he ever did were valid, or were people eating a piece of bread wrongly thinking it was Jesus for years.

 

[MNathaniel]

Only if you are sure that your baptism wasn’t done validly. If there is someone who witnessed it who can tell you that it was done properly, no need to worry.

But that’s impossible. It was far too many years ago, nothing was video recorded, my parents didn’t care about religion enough to pay attention to or remember the words (they didn’t even remember if the formula was Trinitarian, when I initially asked during RCIA; that bit was only confirmed when they dug up the printed certificate).

Honestly this seems really unfair, if the hierarchy are going to simultaneously tell us that our decades-past infant baptisms may be objectively invalid on the basis of one wrong word, but we’re forbidden from having the situation corrected unless we can time travel and observe the situation ourselves with adult eyes. How can this be just or even baseline kind?

 

[ReaderT]

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.

Thank you for your answers, Father.

The question I’m more concerned with is whether all the consecrations of Holy Eucharist he ever did were valid, or were people eating a piece of bread wrongly thinking it was Jesus for years.

According to the priest, the answer is: not Jesus.

 

[StudentMI]

Honestly this seems really unfair, if the hierarchy are going to simultaneously tell us that our decades-past infant baptisms may be objectively invalid on the basis of one wrong word, but we’re forbidden from having the situation corrected unless we can time travel and observe the situation ourselves with adult eyes. How can this be just or even baseline kind?

I have to agree with this.

 

[edward_george1]

You’re describing two separate issues. I don’t blame you for being upset, but recognize that there are two different things going on:

The Vatican has pointed out that baptisms done in that manner are invalid. That is an objective fact that they clarified.

Your local priest doesn’t seem to want to do a conditional baptism, or didn’t want to when you converted. That’s quite independent of anything the hierarchy is doing or saying about this. The hierarchy hasn’t forbidden you from rectifying the situation.

I would approach your priest again and let him know that you are in doubt about it.

 

[edward_george1]

The question I’m more concerned with is whether all the consecrations of Holy Eucharist he ever did were valid, or were people eating a piece of bread wrongly thinking it was Jesus for years.

Obviously they wouldn’t be valid. No baptism, no orders. No orders, no Eucharist. But that said, while everyone was just eating bread and thinking it was Jesus in the hypothetical presented, nobody would be guilty of sacrilege for thinking he was receiving the Eucharist when he wasn’t.

Nemo dat quod non got.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, I’m pretty angry right now at how the Church handled this, and I hope that the Catholics who might be in this type of situation don’t bother to follow the Vatican news on the Internet or don’t think deeply enough about it to worry about it like we do here.

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t think they could have handled it any other way to be fair.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sure they could. The question has been around for at least 10 years if we just go by Fr Z’s blog in 2009. It’s probably actually been around longer than that. They could have addressed it back then and not taken until 2020 to release this news in the middle of a worldwide pandemic disruption. They also could provide guidance so we’re not having to have a 90-post question thread and just feel lucky that a priest or two are around to help us out with the answers to our questions.

In my corporate work, we don’t just drop bombshells without a guidance plan for damage control. And this isn’t even a corporation we’re talking about here, it’s a flock. How is this pastoral care? It’s making you and a lot of other people worry.

 

[ZemD]

Since it seems many protestant denominations do not adhere to the valid wording required for baptism exclusively, will the church now stop recognizing other Christian denominations baptisms as valid?

 

[edward_george1]

No, the Church will recognize valid baptisms as valid, and invalid baptisms as invalid, as it always has.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Since it seems many protestant denominations do not adhere to the valid wording required for baptism exclusively, will the church now stop recognizing other Christian denominations baptisms as valid?

No, because a lot of protestant denominations do use the “I baptize” language or at least that’s what’s in their official books. This mostly pertains to a subset of denominations.

It may be that priests and RCIA directors may ask more questions about how a person was previously baptized, and priests may become more willing to provide conditional baptisms in cases where the person really doesn’t have a clue if the proper wording was used.

 

[StudentMI]

I’m reminded of a quote from the Catechism. From memory: God has bound himself to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound by them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And thank God for that.

 

[MNathaniel]

Thank-you for your replies, Father.

My understanding of ‘hierarchy’ was that it includes all the ordained (including local priests), therefore my frustration that my local priest denied me something that the Vatican is now seemingly making clear I ought to do.

As it is, I’m now doing my due diligence. I’ve reached out to the church where I received infant baptism, just in case (somehow) the minister who baptized me those decades ago was known to exclusively and inflexibly use the “I” language option in their handbook rather than the “we” language option in their handbook. Once I hear back from them (which I expect to convey that they simply cannot guarantee the form used on a specific day so long ago), I plan to reach out to my local priest again with the wording of this new CDF statement (forbidding “we” language), combined with the wording of my childhood church’s sacrament handbook (permitting “we” language), and the statement from their representatives today that there is legitimate doubt over which form was used in my case.

Perhaps the most irritating thing to me about this is that I do believe that my own baptism was valid, based on the spiritual accompaniment I have experienced with God in my life. So assuming I do move forward to conditional baptism and conditional confirmation, these events won’t have a particular celebratory nature because they’re so precautionary and box-checky. At the same time, there now seems at least such reasonable doubt from the technical, on-paper side (with only a 1/3 chance that my childhood church used “I baptize you” language), that it seems an obligation is upon me to take the necessary steps to achieve certainty, before I continue to receive the other sacraments (like the Eucharist). I’d rather defer to the Church than use my own private judgment, so who am I to use subjective perceptions of God’s accompaniment to decide I needn’t pursue a baptism that is definitely valid in the Church’s eyes? Even though I deferred to the Church in the first place by accepting my priest’s refusal to offer me conditional baptism when I converted, despite my serious doubts then too.

Prayers would be appreciated, for myself and all others who are wrestling with this situation.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Would Ecclesia supplet apply in re to confession?

 

[LilyM]

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.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

Thanks. I wasn’t certain, but suspected, that the Church didn’t view concelebration of Baptism as being possible. In which case it follows without question that ‘we’ never would baptise.

 

[edward_george1]

No. Ecclesia supplet means that the law supplies executive power of governance for someone who lacks it. A priest without faculties validly absolves in certain circumstances because “the Church supplies.” But the Church can’t supply ordination to an unbaptized man under that rubric, anymore than ecclesia supplet would kick in if the priest used Doritos and root beer for the Eucharist.

 

[MNathaniel]

God has bound himself to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound by them.

Just for casual readers and posterity, I think you meant to type: “God has bound salvation to…” not, bound Himself. (Since the other half of the sentence clarifies that God Himself is not bound by them.)