Legalism Run Amuck?

[MechAg94]

Thousands of baptisms declared invalid because of one-word error by Phoenix priest
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-phoenix-baptisms-invalid-sacrament-20220216-guwxxinjgzbv3bwgo5jady3gau-story.html

The Rev. Andres Arango of the Diocese of Phoenix was baptizing people by saying “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Instead, he should’ve been starting with “I baptize you”.

“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote in a January announcement.

Got it from Lehto's Law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7wCd8kHApw

I am sure some people take this sort of thing seriously.  I am not Catholic and I guess I don't take the ritual stuff so seriously.  I am sure this is all written down so I am curious how the priest got the wording wrong.

[lee n. field]

Saw that somewhere else.

I'm not Roman Catholic, so I'd have to guess at the reasoning.

[zxcvbob]

"We" is just fine.  It's the royal we.    (I'm kinda half-serious.)  Also, the we could be referring to the priest and Jesus, with the priest acting as His agent. It does not have to refer to the community.  However I am not familiar with the nuance of Roman Catholic doctrine.

[WLJ]

So he didn't use the proper pronoun

[BobR]

I read about this yesterday and thought, wow what a bunch of nothing. But as I am not Catholic I really don't understand the whole thing. What has happened to people who were baptized wrongly (according to the church) and have died in the meantime? Are they now out there in limbo with no chance of leaving?

bob

[WLJ]

So does God get upset if you use the wrong pronoun?

[HankB]

I'm Catholic and this sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me.

If that word invalidates not only baptism but many other sacraments - including ordination - how do we know - KNOW! - that priests are actually priests? (Along with bishops, cardinals, etc.)

Can we be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the priests who baptized today's cardinals didn't stumble over the words they used, many decades ago? And if not . . . did that mean an unconsecrated cardinal helped elect the current pope? Illegal voting!

IS THE POPE CATHOLIC is an old rhetorical question that actually may have more meaning than people realize - do we have video of the current pope being baptized 'way back when?

And (here's the kicker) . . . if it turns out that someone was NOT actually baptized Catholic, and has been donating to the church all along . . . wasn't the church collecting his offerings under false pretenses? If that's the case, shouldn't there be a refund - with interest?

As I said, it sounds like malarkey to me.

[lee n. field]

I'm Catholic and this sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me.

If that word invalidates not only baptism but many other sacraments - including ordination - how do we know - KNOW! - that priests are actually priests? (Along with bishops, cardinals, etc.)

Can we be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the priests who baptized today's cardinals didn't stumble over the words they used, many decades ago? And if not . . . did that mean an unconsecrated cardinal helped elect the current pope? Illegal voting!

IS THE POPE CATHOLIC is an old rhetorical question that actually may have more meaning than people realize - do we have video of the current pope being baptized 'way back when?

And (here's the kicker) . . . if it turns out that someone was NOT actually baptized Catholic, and has been donating to the church all along . . . wasn't the church collecting his offerings under false pretenses? If that's the case, shouldn't there be a refund - with interest?

As I said, it sounds like malarkey to me.

That sounds like the Donatist controversy, way back when. 

[Hawkmoon]

The Rev. Andres Arango of the Diocese of Phoenix was baptizing people by saying “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Instead, he should’ve been starting with “I baptize you”.

“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote in a January announcement.

If it is Christ and Christ alone who baptizes, then "I" is just as incorrect as "We," because saying "I" is saying that it is the officiant who is doing the baptism. But, since the language says "... in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," then I don't see how it makes any difference who is doing it "in the name of" the aforementioned Holy Trinity.

I have always thought of baptism ceremonies as being communal. Not in that it is the community that baptizes, but that the community bears witness to the baptism. And I think that's valid regardless of whether the officiant says "I" or "We."

Beyond that, in the Roman Catholic Church the order of the seven sacraments ( baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, holy orders, matrimony, and anointing of the sick) is important. Technically, if any of those whose baptisms have been ruled invalid thought they were married in the church -- their marriages are now also invalid.

[French G.]

Jesus had a mouse in his pocket.

Someone assumed Jesus’ pronouns.

[230RN]

Hawkmoon explained:

"
If it is Christ and Christ alone who baptizes, then "I" is just as incorrect as "We," because saying "I" is saying that it is the officiant who is doing the baptism. But, since the language says "... in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," then I don't see how it makes any difference who is doing it "in the name of" the aforementioned Holy Trinity.
"

That does it for me. 

Thank you, Hawkmoon.

And if I recall correctly from my Altar Boy training, even lay people can perform some of the sacraments in an emergency.  Baptism and Extreme Unction come to mind. I think Marriage, too, "in the name of...."

The whole issue smacks of "How many pinheads can dance on the head of an Angel."

Terry, 230RN

[Ron]

That sounds like the Donatist controversy, way back when.

I suspect there is a political or personal motivation behind this controversy. 

[Devonai]

The Pope as portrayed by Jeremy Irons on The Borgias always used "we" when referring to himself in that capacity.

[zxcvbob]

The whole issue smacks of "How many pinheads can dance on the head of an Angel."

Terry, 230RN

Or how many licks to get to the chocolatey center of a Tootsie Pop.

[HankB]

. . . And if I recall correctly from my Altar Boy training, even lay people can perform some of the sacraments in an emergency.  Baptism and Extreme Unction come to mind. I think Marriage, too, "in the name of...."

I remember in religion class they said any one of us could administer baptism in an emergency - they used the example of someone on the verge of death after a car wreck. I don't remember any other sacraments being included. (Which is not to say they weren't included - it's been a long time and I may not have been the most attentive student on that day.)

[Hawkmoon]

FWIW, the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer contains, in English, pretty much the exact same rites that the Roman Catholic Church was saying in Latin for all those centuries (and I'm not certain but I think the Roman Catholic Church may have leaned heavily on the Book of Common Prayer when they stopped saying mass in Latin. The rite of Baptism is found here:
https://www.bcponline.org/Baptism/holybaptism.html

You have to scroll down through a pile of verbiage to get to the actual baptizing part. When you find it, this is what it says ("N" is shorthand for "Name"):

The Baptism

Each candidate is presented by name to the Celebrant, or to an assisting
priest or deacon, who then immerses, or pours water upon, the
candidate, saying

N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.


When this action has been completed for all candidates, the Bishop or
Priest, at a place in full sight of the congregation, prays over them, saying

Let us pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the
forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of
grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your Holy Spirit. Give them
an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to
persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy
and wonder in all your works. Amen.


Then the Bishop or Priest places a hand on the person's head, marking
on the forehead the sign of the cross [using Chrism if desired] and saying to
each one

N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked
as Christ's own for ever. Amen.

Seems to me like all the actual baptizing is done by God and by the Holy Spirit. It actually doesn't say that Christ does anything. (The Roman Catholic baptism rite may be worded differently.) I'm back to where I started -- if the actual baptizing is the act of God and of the Holy Spirit, how can it make any difference whatsoever if the priest says "I" or "We"?

And here's the RC rite: https://bedfordcatholic.org/documents/2015/5/RiteOfBaptism.pdf

Slightly different wording from the Episcopal version, but it still doesn't say that Christ is doing the baptizing. It's clear (to me, anyway) that it is God who is doing the baptizing.

As for precedent: How about the first baptism? If Christ does the baptizing, then what does that say about John the Baptist? Jesus didn't baptize himself -- was His baptism invalid? Where would THAT leave us?

[Hawkmoon]

I remember in religion class they said any one of us could administer baptism in an emergency - they used the example of someone on the verge of death after a car wreck. I don't remember any other sacraments being included. (Which is not to say they weren't included - it's been a long time and I may not have been the most attentive student on that day.)

I thought that was the last rites.

[230RN]

^
"I thought that was the last rites."

I thought it was Baptism, Matrimony, Last Rites (Extreme Unction), but only in an emergency to save a soul.  IIRC the marriage one was to keep a child from being illegitimate in the case of one of the unmarried parents on the verge of passing --or something like that  --maybe to preserve family inheritance rights.

At least, that's the way I recall it from the Nun teaching the "altar boy" class, but boy, that was 1954-55 or so.

Tell you what.  If I found myself in that situation, I'd say whatever words I could before the person's Final Event and would figure I was on G-d's good side for doing it.

Terry. 230RN

[De Selby]

Define irony: man who believes in triune God that is “three persons” but “one substance” called out for saying we instead of I.

How is it possible to only represent Jesus, when Jesus is the Holy Spirit and God the Father at the same time?

If more people considered how mind bending the concept of the trinity actually is, there’d be fewer baptisms of all stripes.

[Fly320s]

If more people considered how mind bending the concept of the trinity actually is, there’d be fewer baptisms of all stripes.

Religion makes people feel good.  That is all the consideration most people need/want.

[Ron]

Define irony: man who believes in triune God that is “three persons” but “one substance” called out for saying we instead of I.

How is it possible to only represent Jesus, when Jesus is the Holy Spirit and God the Father at the same time?

If more people considered how mind bending the concept of the trinity actually is, there’d be fewer baptisms of all stripes.

The trinity is a paradox.

There are unsolved paradoxes and paradoxes that have been solved.

[Ron]

Religion makes people feel good.  That is all the consideration most people need/want.

That might be in the running for the most facile description of religion I've ever read.

[Fly320s]

That might be in the running for the most facile description of religion I've ever read.

Thanks.  It was easy.   

[HankB]

^
"I thought that was the last rites."

I thought it was Baptism, Matrimony, Last Rites (Extreme Unction), but only in an emergency to save a soul.  IIRC the marriage one was to keep a child from being illegitimate in the case of one of the unmarried parents on the verge of passing --or something like that  --maybe to preserve family inheritance rights.

At least, that's the way I recall it from the Nun teaching the "altar boy" class, but boy, that was 1954-55 or so.

Tell you what.  If I found myself in that situation, I'd say whatever words I could before the person's Final Event and would figure I was on G-d's good side for doing it.

Terry. 230RN

I wasn't an altar boy, but I did have religion class every school day for 8 years. Again, I don't remember "lay" people being able to administer anything except Baptism, and then only in an emergency. I have a hard time accepting that administering a sacrament with honorable intentions would be invalidated by 1 wrong word, a slip of the tongue, or a translation error. Think of how many minor mistakes out of BILLIONS of sacraments administered to BILLIONS of people over a span of 2000 years must have occurred.

When I was in elementary Catholic school during the '60s (makes me just a few years younger than you, 230RN) they taught Last Rites - alternatively Extreme Unction - as one of the sacraments, but now they've changed it to Anointing of the Sick. I didn't even know that until I talked to the hospital chaplain and requested a priest for my mother, who passed just a few hours after her Anointing.

[Doggy Daddy]

How odd that so many intelligent people can be hung up on the idea that an entity (whether God or an egg) is made up of parts.