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.
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: тАЬpresumes.тАЭ 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 тАЬin persona ChristiтАЭ 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 itтАЩs 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 whatтАЩs the way out of this?
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 canтАЩt believe you responded - IтАЩm 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: тАЬpresumes.тАЭ 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 тАЬin persona ChristiтАЭ 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 itтАЩs 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 whatтАЩs the way out of this?