Sometimes it seems like it's priests and bishops who need the catechesis. Why on earth would anyone think it is ever okay to alter the form of a sacrament? If people just used the words in the book like they're supposed to, problems like this would never arise.
The issue seems to be that administering a sacrament requires right intention. And that intention is manifested by the words used to administer the sacrament.
Having said that, it's not clear what the difference is between "I baptize" and "We baptize". It would seem that it is the individual who baptizes, not the whole community.
I don't understand who the "we" is in "we baptise." Is it the community? That would be a bad intention, there is no grace to be had from the community. Is it "we" the three persons of the Trinity? Better, but a little presumptive to speak on behalf of all three.
"I" baptise, as well as being ancient, seems to very much have the intention "I [, standing in the person of Christ,] baptise." On baptism the neophyte goes into the tomb with Christ, it is God who acts, not a committee. "We baptise" has bad ju-ju as far as I am concerned.
Right intention is necessary but so are matter and form. While those are traditional theological terms, they're not difficult to understand or explain. The "matter" doesn't just mean physical substance (although that's important too -- you have to baptize with water, you can't use orange juice) it's also the gestures, etc. There are a few things, just a few, that have to be part of each sacrament. So you do them. The "form" refers to the words. You have to say the correct words, you can't make up other ones. Everyone, everywhere, says the same ones. When one language is used for a liturgy, it's easy to see when the priest uses the correct ones. In theory this is the same with the vernacular -- there are approved translations, and you use the words from that translation. What's hard about that? APPARENTLY a lot for some people!!! Seriously. Memorize the words. Read them off a card. Whatever it takes. It's not a five minute speech. In this case, the priest says "I." He's got the water. He's got the person. He (and through him, Christ) is performing the sacrament. There is no "we."
This scandal is of a piece with the general sloppiness that we've all been subjected to in both the liturgy (phony baloney ad hoc Eucharistic prayers) and catechesis (ask your local group of teenage candidates for confirmation what they know and believe about the faith- and despair). When you have a generation or two of prelates who are allergic to "rigidity" in both the form and content of the faith, you get what we have.
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?
It's extremely frustrating to me the lack of consistency here. I have a video of a family member being baptized with the "we" formula. I contacted the parish priest where the baptism occurred and he assured me that I could and should count on the grace of the sacrament being conferred. Then we have other diocese going ahead and saying they've got thousands of invalid baptisms and it all needs to be rectified.
Personally, I'd feel a lot better about this if there were a diocesan contact for this information. Parish priests are overworked. In a lot of cases (like mine), you've moved away and they have no idea who you are. Moreover, this is a diocesan issue. If there were invalid baptisms occurring at a place for an extended period of time, the invalidly baptized are going to spread all over the diocese. Some may even be priests now, who knows. I don't think a parish priest is going to have the bandwidth to track all that down on his own.
The parish priest was incorrect. You have evidence that your family member was invalidly baptized. According to the Vatican he or she has to be baptized “in forma absoluta”. Your current parish priest can do the baptism. The diocesan bishop where the invalid baptisms occurred should be notified because there are probably others in the same situation and as you said he has the resources to correct this issue. Here is the Vatican link https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein
Sometimes it seems like it's priests and bishops who need the catechesis. Why on earth would anyone think it is ever okay to alter the form of a sacrament? If people just used the words in the book like they're supposed to, problems like this would never arise.
"Read the black, do the red", as it were.
They probably think of themselves as avoiding the sin of "rigidity" by playing loose.
The issue seems to be that administering a sacrament requires right intention. And that intention is manifested by the words used to administer the sacrament.
Having said that, it's not clear what the difference is between "I baptize" and "We baptize". It would seem that it is the individual who baptizes, not the whole community.
Clear explanation would be welcome.
I don't understand who the "we" is in "we baptise." Is it the community? That would be a bad intention, there is no grace to be had from the community. Is it "we" the three persons of the Trinity? Better, but a little presumptive to speak on behalf of all three.
"I" baptise, as well as being ancient, seems to very much have the intention "I [, standing in the person of Christ,] baptise." On baptism the neophyte goes into the tomb with Christ, it is God who acts, not a committee. "We baptise" has bad ju-ju as far as I am concerned.
I believe you've described the issue succinctly and accurately.
I think the intent behind "we" was that it is the Christian community who baptizes.
But I think you identified the problem with that view. It is Christ who baptizes, through the person performing the baptism. Hence, "'I' baptize".
Glad to read that another Tarzan aficionado comments correctly!
Right intention is necessary but so are matter and form. While those are traditional theological terms, they're not difficult to understand or explain. The "matter" doesn't just mean physical substance (although that's important too -- you have to baptize with water, you can't use orange juice) it's also the gestures, etc. There are a few things, just a few, that have to be part of each sacrament. So you do them. The "form" refers to the words. You have to say the correct words, you can't make up other ones. Everyone, everywhere, says the same ones. When one language is used for a liturgy, it's easy to see when the priest uses the correct ones. In theory this is the same with the vernacular -- there are approved translations, and you use the words from that translation. What's hard about that? APPARENTLY a lot for some people!!! Seriously. Memorize the words. Read them off a card. Whatever it takes. It's not a five minute speech. In this case, the priest says "I." He's got the water. He's got the person. He (and through him, Christ) is performing the sacrament. There is no "we."
This scandal is of a piece with the general sloppiness that we've all been subjected to in both the liturgy (phony baloney ad hoc Eucharistic prayers) and catechesis (ask your local group of teenage candidates for confirmation what they know and believe about the faith- and despair). When you have a generation or two of prelates who are allergic to "rigidity" in both the form and content of the faith, you get what we have.
Great piece.
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?
It's extremely frustrating to me the lack of consistency here. I have a video of a family member being baptized with the "we" formula. I contacted the parish priest where the baptism occurred and he assured me that I could and should count on the grace of the sacrament being conferred. Then we have other diocese going ahead and saying they've got thousands of invalid baptisms and it all needs to be rectified.
Personally, I'd feel a lot better about this if there were a diocesan contact for this information. Parish priests are overworked. In a lot of cases (like mine), you've moved away and they have no idea who you are. Moreover, this is a diocesan issue. If there were invalid baptisms occurring at a place for an extended period of time, the invalidly baptized are going to spread all over the diocese. Some may even be priests now, who knows. I don't think a parish priest is going to have the bandwidth to track all that down on his own.
The parish priest was incorrect. You have evidence that your family member was invalidly baptized. According to the Vatican he or she has to be baptized “in forma absoluta”. Your current parish priest can do the baptism. The diocesan bishop where the invalid baptisms occurred should be notified because there are probably others in the same situation and as you said he has the resources to correct this issue. Here is the Vatican link https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein
I'm in the process of talking to their chancery. Sadly I'm not sure the person will seek valid baptism
That is sad. I hope your family member reconsiders. I will pray for you and your family.