Invalid baptisms for years

organgrinder

Well-known member
What will all those folks do have been invalidly baptized by a priest? Are they damned to hell? My goodness, the priest deviated from the sacramental liturgy formula and said "we baptize" instead of "I baptize"...

Brings to light that it isn't magic words in the liturgical formula of baptism that remits sins but the actual blood of Jesus the individual believer appropriates by faith in Christ alone. Here is the story. Looks like lots of Catholics will be lining up to get 'er done' right.

PHOENIX — Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix said baptisms performed by a priest during years of ministry in the diocese are invalid, leading to the resignation of the clergyman Feb. 1.

In a Jan. 14 letter to the diocese, Bishop Olmsted said diocesan officials learned from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the baptisms were invalid because of the form used during the ritual by Father Andres Arango.

"Specifically, it was reported to me that Father Andres used the formula 'We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' The key phrase in question is the use of 'We baptize' in place of 'I baptize,'" Bishop Olmsted wrote.

"The issue with using 'We' is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and him alone, who presides at all of the sacrament, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," the bishop's letter said.

(From Crux, Catholic News Service)
 

Southsider071

Well-known member
Its an important story, because it demonstrates how devoted the RCC is to technicalities and procedures. Mr. Arango made a series of errors for a long period of time, and apparently wasn't as informed as an RC priest ought to be about the protocol. But now, the RCC will be looking to "clean up" this "mess" of improper protocol and will probably have to spend decades re-doing sacraments.

Technicalities are an essential part of the Catholic Church, and always have been.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
What will all those folks do have been invalidly baptized by a priest? Are they damned to hell? My goodness, the priest deviated from the sacramental liturgy formula and said "we baptize" instead of "I baptize"...

Brings to light that it isn't magic words in the liturgical formula of baptism that remits sins but the actual blood of Jesus the individual believer appropriates by faith in Christ alone. Here is the story. Looks like lots of Catholics will be lining up to get 'er done' right.

PHOENIX — Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix said baptisms performed by a priest during years of ministry in the diocese are invalid, leading to the resignation of the clergyman Feb. 1.

In a Jan. 14 letter to the diocese, Bishop Olmsted said diocesan officials learned from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the baptisms were invalid because of the form used during the ritual by Father Andres Arango.

"Specifically, it was reported to me that Father Andres used the formula 'We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' The key phrase in question is the use of 'We baptize' in place of 'I baptize,'" Bishop Olmsted wrote.

"The issue with using 'We' is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and him alone, who presides at all of the sacrament, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," the bishop's letter said.

(From Crux, Catholic News Service)
They would be saved through Baptism of desire.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
If all that's needed is for people to "desire" baptism, why does the RCC bother with the physical act?
Well, um, like, because God commands it.

God is not bound by the Sacramental action of pouring of water but he has bound us to that. While people can be saved apart from the physical pouring of water though Baptism of Desire, (example: the "good thief" on the cross) it does not follow that we should just ignore the command of God. Baptism of Desire is the exception to the rule and we do not build rules on exceptions.
Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient just to skip it and just record it in the RCC archives as a b.o.d.?
I am sure it would be a lot more efficient and a lot less work for priests and deacons, sure.

But we do not put aside the commands of God for the sake of efficiency and less work.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Not biblical. Water doesn't save. The blood of Jesus saves by faith. Read your Bible..... then believe it.
Of course water doesn't save! Water isn't magic!

Christ is the one working in the Sacrament of Baptism, not the water. The water is just a sign of what is taking place in the soul: washing, cleansing, death and rebirth.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
How about salvation through desire? How does that work?
Baptism of Desire/Salvation through desire, same thing.

All who seek truth, all who seek God with a sincere heart will find God and be given a sufficient knowledge of God to find salvation. God promises that all who seek Him will find Him.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
How does a baby desire?
I am not a baby and I do not remember being a baby, but I think it safe to assume that people below the age of reason cannot desire salvation.

But God works based on the desire of the their parents/those who seek Baptism on behalf of the child. God does not need the child's permission to regenerate them.

If God needed our explicit permission to regenerate people, then all who have mental disabilities and lack the use of reason or higher brain functions are in trouble! In other words, only the people with the use of reason could be saved.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Youre placing the importance of salvation on baptism and not Jesus. Paul never told the jailer in Acts 16 'be baptized and you will be saved'. What did he say?
Sigh...

Why the divorce between Baptism and Jesus? Why do you not see the connection between Baptism and Jesus?

"Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Then there is the teaching of Acts 8: 38-40.

The Bible teaches a connection between Baptism, regeneration and Faith.

Now I get you have your "explanations" ready. Spare me. I realize you people have an answer for everything. I have been on these boards since 2006. In that time I have seen that there is nothing a Catholic is going to say that you don't have some explanation for, or some rationalization for, or that you otherwise cannot find a way to explain away or otherwise dismiss as irrelevant.

I am not interested in your interpretation of the Scriptures because I have no reason to believe that you have any greater understanding of the Scriptures than anyone else does. It isn't like Catholics are the only ones who see a connection between Baptism and redemption. Lutherans also see this, so do Anglicans. They also have infant Baptism, as do Presbyterians. My point? Again, we Catholics aren't the only ones who believe there is a connection between Baptism and Jesus, Baptism and redemption, Baptism and regeneration. People that you would consider believers also believe this.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Of course water doesn't save! Water isn't magic!

Christ is the one working in the Sacrament of Baptism, not the water. The water is just a sign of what is taking place in the soul: washing, cleansing, death and rebirth.
And the infant can never make that decision to accept Christ. That is what makes the ritual "magic".
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
And the infant can never make that decision to accept Christ. That is what makes the ritual "magic".
Why does it matter whether an infant can decide anything? Why does God need to ask the infant permission to work and regenerate the infant? Why can't God work through the Faith of the parents?

Regeneration and conversion are two distinct realities. God regenerates us. Conversion on the other hand is up to us.
 
Top