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

[StudentMI]

You are correct. Dang memory! 1257 of the Catechism.

 

[ReaderT]

Sorry to keep pulling at this string, but a thought occurred:

According to the Catholic understanding, suppose that the invalidly ordained priest became a Bishop (not improbable given all the heretical baptisms throughout the ages).

All of the priests he ordains are invalid. The sacraments they all minister (confession, eucharist, unction/last rites) are invalid.

All Bishops he consecrates are invalid. Then the process spreads to their dioceses also.

How does that work?

 

[StudentMI]

That would be a colossal trainwreck.

 

[StudentMI]

Now you’ve got me thinking. What if that invalidly baptised bishop became archbishop and consecrated more bishops who then ordained priests? What if a child he invalidly baptised later became an archbishop and then invalidly consecrated bishops who ordained priests etc.

 

[ReaderT]

Now you’ve got me thinking. What if that invalidly baptised bishop became archbishop and consecrated more bishops who then ordained priests? What if a child he invalidly baptised later became an archbishop and then invalidly consecrated bishops who ordained priests etc.

Yes - and even if just he’s a regular Bishop he could still consecrate other Bishops.

The 2nd Bishop and his sacraments are invalid (and all those of his priests, etc.) - Then the situation continues throughout all time, nobody knowing who is ever validly ordained or not.

 

[Anesti33]

Sorry to keep pulling at this string, but a thought occurred:

According to the Catholic understanding, suppose that the invalidly ordained priest became a Bishop (not improbable given all the heretical baptisms throughout the ages).

All of the priests he ordains are invalid. The sacraments they all minister (confession, eucharist, unction/last rites) are invalid.

All Bishops he consecrates are invalid. Then the process spreads to their dioceses also.

How does that work?

It is extremely unlikely that a bishop is consecrated invalidly, and here’s why. The long-standing practice in the Roman Rite is that three co-consecrators are used in episcopal ordinations. That means that three different bishops with three separate lines of apostolic succession are involved. The odds of one or two, much less all three, bishops being invalidly ordained are, in turn, vanishingly rare; this process actually purifies the lines of succession as they go.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Now you’ve got me thinking. What if that invalidly baptised bishop became archbishop and consecrated more bishops who then ordained priests? What if a child he invalidly baptised later became an archbishop and then invalidly consecrated bishops who ordained priests etc.

Well to be clear, this is probably main reason why usually more Bishops consecrate a Bishop… it is “just in case”… In Eastern Christianity, it is canonically forbidden for one Bishop to ordain another Bishop. There always have to be at least 2 (but usually canons mandate 3 IIRC).

I do feel uncomfortable like it’s sort of ‘magical thinking’ (that God would withhold the sacramental graces on the basis of one word, if the intent is correct).

Invalidity is because it isn’t Priest or individual who baptizes in this situation. If they see community as those who baptize, it shows wrong intent. It is whole lot different if someone just speaks about himself in plural (royal “we” sort of thing). If one views Sacrament as something group administers when there is wrong understanding of baptism.

During Reformation, what was perceived as invalid Lutheran baptism was when one Lutheran pastor would pour the water while the other said the words. This was ruled to be completely invalid and hence this very similar situation warrants same answer.

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.

Baptism is surely something to be respected, but Supreme Law of the Church is Salvation of Souls. If Baptism is in doubt, Salvation is in doubt. Surely respect for the Baptism resulting into not wanting to confer conditional Baptism is superseded by Supreme Law of the Church.

And lastly, to all who are wondering about validity of their baptism and wanting to get conditional baptism, I want to point out that since you are trying so hard to get baptized it means you surely do desire baptism and Baptism of Desire applies to you. I know it still does not solve situation with other Sacraments being invalid, but God clearly sees your struggle and He knows your heart.

 

[edward_george1]

Baptism is surely something to be respected, but Supreme Law of the Church is Salvation of Souls. If Baptism is in doubt, Salvation is in doubt. Surely respect for the Baptism resulting into not wanting to confer conditional Baptism is superseded by Supreme Law of the Church.

I don’t think I said anything like that. I’m just saying that in law and in practice, there is a rightful hesitancy to do conditional baptisms. They are a last resort for when there is a doubt that cannot be resolved any other way. This thread and the present situation are a good example of why. If the practice of conditional baptism was less restrained and more frequent, you would suddenly have a needless multiplication of doubts.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I never meant to imply you said something like that. I apologize if I expressed myself in wrong manner. I am simply saying that there is great argument for conditional Baptisms in cases mentioned above.

If the practice of conditional baptism was less restrained and more frequent, you would suddenly have a needless multiplication of doubts.

Well that makes sense. Though there is reasonable doubt expressed by above posters which is what I was referring to. I didn’t mean to say conditional Baptisms should become more common (but certainly, if CDF suddenly declares some form of Baptism to be invalid then it means that there will be higher number of Baptisms/Conditional Baptisms for a little while).

 

[Anesti33]

It is worth noting that the CDF has actually removed doubt, and judged that this formula is objectively invalid. Any baptisms of subjects affected by it must be in forma absoluta. It’s only if the formula cannot be decisively determined that there may be doubt.

 

[Anesti33]

ReaderT:

Sorry to keep pulling at this string, but a thought occurred:

According to the Catholic understanding, suppose that the invalidly ordained priest became a Bishop (not improbable given all the heretical baptisms throughout the ages).

All of the priests he ordains are invalid. The sacraments they all minister (confession, eucharist, unction/last rites) are invalid.

All Bishops he consecrates are invalid. Then the process spreads to their dioceses also.

How does that work?

It is extremely unlikely that a bishop is consecrated invalidly, and here’s why. The long-standing practice in the Roman Rite is that three co-consecrators are used in episcopal ordinations. That means that three different bishops with three separate lines of apostolic succession are involved. The odds of one or two, much less all three, bishops being invalidly ordained are, in turn, vanishingly rare; this process actually purifies the lines of succession as they go.

I should point out that this 3-consecrator method does not directly rectify the problem of an unbaptized “bishop”, but it does confine the problem to one man only and prevents it from spreading as you described.

It is also important to point out that it is highly unlikely that a man should be elevated to the episcopate and then his baptism be found null. Given that a man is at least 50 or so at this point, and already under intense scrutiny as a priest for many years, what possible scenario can you imagine that a baptism is suddenly to be found null (except, of course, for the case at hand)?

 

[Dovekin]

In discussing ecumenical dimensions of baptismal celebrations the Vatican said this:

While by baptism a person is incorporated into Christ and his Church, this is only done in practice in a given Church or ecclesial Community. Baptism, therefore, may not be conferred jointly by two ministers belonging to different Churches or ecclesial Communities. Moreover, according to Catholic liturgical and theological tradition, baptism is celebrated by just one celebrant. For pastoral reasons, in particular circumstances the local Ordinary may sometimes permit, however, that a minister of another Church or ecclesial Community take part in the celebration by reading a lesson, offering a prayer, etc. Reciprocity is possible only if a baptism celebrated in another Community does not conflict with Catholic principles or discipline.
Directory… for Ecumenism (1993)

This settles only some small portion of the problems raised in this thread.

My thoughts: Baptism is practiced “in a given Church or ecclesial Community.” That Community at the same time represents the One Church professed in the creeds. Two ministers might represent divisions in the Church rather than our unity in Baptism.

Similarly it is Christ who baptizes. It is good to have one person who baptizes to represent Christ’s individual attention to the individual baptized. I am not sure why concelebration is allowed for the Eucharist, but not for Baptism, even though I see the value of it.

In assessing the validity of a non-Catholic Baptism, agreements among the relevant Communities are important. If we say we recognize Lutheran Baptisms, we recognize Lutheran Baptisms conducted in Lutheran ways. The Vatican’s statement is more important at that level than at individual baptisms.

 

[StudentMI]

That doesn’t really address the recent document.

 

[MNathaniel]

In assessing the validity of a non-Catholic Baptism, agreements among the relevant Communities are important. If we say we recognize Lutheran Baptisms, we recognize Lutheran Baptisms conducted in Lutheran ways. The Vatican’s statement is more important at that level than at individual baptisms.

I’m not sure I follow the last sentence (how the Vatican’s statement can fail to apply to individual baptisms). But I will report back once my own situation is sorted out.

Can absolutely guarantee that based on the handbook where my Protestant denomination permits “we” language, they explicitly reference the fact that the baptismal form prescribed in their handbook is with their agreements with Rome in mind, and they make it clear that deviating from the wording offered is not legitimate and would be a “breach of trust” with ecumenical partners. (It seems to me that their handbook reflects a belief that all Rome cares about is Trinitarian formula; they don’t specify why they offer three introductory language options (“I baptize”, “we baptize”, “you are baptized”). So it seems clear to me that my childhood Protestant church, at least prior to two days ago, believed that when they perform baptism (including under the “we” language, so long as Trinitarian formula ia used) they are doing what the Roman Catholic Church intends.

The question though is whether the Vatican sees it this way. Having just broad-strokes declared as invalid all baptisms spoken with “we” formula. And not clarified whether they consider baptisms by Protestants intending to keep ecumenical agreements with them ‘exceptions’ for some reason.

Frankly I think this is a mess, only made worse by the fact that many Protestant converts like myself sought conditional baptisms for serious doubts in the first place, but were denied. I feel like I have Schrödinger’s sacrament right now. And I won’t be able to receive the Eucharist in good conscience until this mess is sorted out, given that the Eucharist is reserved for the baptized and I’m suffering from Schrödinger’s baptism here (it may have happened; but it may not have; and at the moment there’s serious reason for doubt).

 

[Dovekin]

That doesn’t really address the recent document.

Maybe not. I am not claiming any kind of solution, just trying to point to some other directions that may offer solutions, not that I see those solutions.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It is worth noting that the CDF has actually removed doubt, and judged that this formula is objectively invalid. Any baptisms of subjects affected by it must be in forma absoluta . It’s only if the formula cannot be decisively determined that there may be doubt.

Many people have a problem that they are unsure whether their Baptism was or wasn’t “we” Baptism… which is why they want conditional Baptism.

 

[ReaderT]

I should point out that this 3-consecrator method does not directly rectify the problem of an unbaptized “bishop”, but it does confine the problem to one man only and prevents it from spreading as you described.

Thank you, I didn’t know about the 3-consecrator rule.

Given that a man is at least 50 or so at this point, and already under intense scrutiny as a priest for many years, what possible scenario can you imagine that a baptism is suddenly to be found null (except, of course, for the case at hand)?

As you say, the case at hand is one scenario, because there have been hundreds of heretical groups in church history that may baptize invalidly. And it’s not unknown for zealous Catholic converts to go straight to priestly discernment. But as you said, worst case scenario in Catholic reckoning is that a couple generations of sacraments were invalid (the Bishop and all his ordinands) and then it would stop.

 

[ZemD]

If we say we recognize Lutheran Baptisms, we recognize Lutheran Baptisms conducted in Lutheran ways.

No the church does not. I think this is one reason for the clarification on the CDF document. If a Lutheran baptism uses “we baptize” instead of “I baptize” it is not a valid baptism, even if that (we) is “the Lutheran way”. The church recognizes baptism from other denominations that use the correct language as valid. This is how I understood my preist when I called asking him about this issue.

 

[Phemie]

StudentMI:

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.

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.

But the Church is already clear that the one who pours or immerses the person baptized must also be the one to say the words.

Read this interesting article from 2003

Quebec Catholic church says 295 baptisms invalid - The Globe and Mail

The archdiocese wrote to all the families they could reach to advise them to bring their children back for the ceremony to be repeated, but by 2003 there were still more than 100 families they hadn’t been able to contact.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you, Father.