What confuses me is that my baptism, which was performed over 30 years ago by a Baptist pastor, is considered valid by the church. I know I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but apart from that, I couldn’t tell you what words were used. It makes little sense to me that baptisms performed by Protestant pastors …
What confuses me is that my baptism, which was performed over 30 years ago by a Baptist pastor, is considered valid by the church. I know I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but apart from that, I couldn’t tell you what words were used. It makes little sense to me that baptisms performed by Protestant pastors are considered valid whilst those performed by Priests who don’t follow the formula 100% are suspect. As a new Catholic, this doesn’t seem to make sense.
It's a good question. The Church would say that if indeed the "we baptize" formula was used by the Baptist pastor, your baptism would be invalid. But absent positive proof of that possibility, she presumes the validity of your baptism.
This, to me, gets at the heart of the much bigger problem with this issue that no one is talking about: “presumes.” Strict particularity about the form/words means that the entire history of the church and its sacraments is ultimately built on that presumption.
Your parish priest was ordained by a bishop, who was in turn ordained, etc., etc. If any of those ordained priests in the line back to Peter were not baptized properly, then their ordinations were also invalid, correct? Which means that all it takes is one unknown improper baptism to break the chain and render all following ordinations, and the sacraments administered by those priests, invalid.
I understand the importance of “in persona Christi” and why the church insists on the right form. But perfectionism on this point necessitates looseness on the presumption front. If it is true that slight alteration in the form invalidates the sacrament, then it is logical to assume that thousands of baptisms of priests over the millennia have probably been invalid. The ramifications of that are troubling.
I would be happy to be wrong on this point. But it’s no good saying we just presume past baptisms have been valid, because the CDF itself is saying that improper form cannot possibly confer a valid sacrament. So what’s the way out of this?
What confuses me is that my baptism, which was performed over 30 years ago by a Baptist pastor, is considered valid by the church. I know I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but apart from that, I couldn’t tell you what words were used. It makes little sense to me that baptisms performed by Protestant pastors are considered valid whilst those performed by Priests who don’t follow the formula 100% are suspect. As a new Catholic, this doesn’t seem to make sense.
It's a good question. The Church would say that if indeed the "we baptize" formula was used by the Baptist pastor, your baptism would be invalid. But absent positive proof of that possibility, she presumes the validity of your baptism.
Thanks JD! I can’t believe you responded - I’m honored. I love The Pillar. Thank you so much for all the great content.
Thanks for reading and subscribing!
This, to me, gets at the heart of the much bigger problem with this issue that no one is talking about: “presumes.” Strict particularity about the form/words means that the entire history of the church and its sacraments is ultimately built on that presumption.
Your parish priest was ordained by a bishop, who was in turn ordained, etc., etc. If any of those ordained priests in the line back to Peter were not baptized properly, then their ordinations were also invalid, correct? Which means that all it takes is one unknown improper baptism to break the chain and render all following ordinations, and the sacraments administered by those priests, invalid.
I understand the importance of “in persona Christi” and why the church insists on the right form. But perfectionism on this point necessitates looseness on the presumption front. If it is true that slight alteration in the form invalidates the sacrament, then it is logical to assume that thousands of baptisms of priests over the millennia have probably been invalid. The ramifications of that are troubling.
I would be happy to be wrong on this point. But it’s no good saying we just presume past baptisms have been valid, because the CDF itself is saying that improper form cannot possibly confer a valid sacrament. So what’s the way out of this?