Invalid Catholic Baptisms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the wrong pronoun made it invalid? OP, find a Lutheran. I was taught anyone can baptize anyone at any time. The example in confirmation class was if you come upon a car accident and don't know if the victims are baptized but are still alive, you can cover that on the spot by baptizing them. I guess if they're dead you gotta find a Mormon. I don't know if Heaven is segregated by denomination but Lutherans are ok people and less annoying than really evangelical or pentacostal people.

Yikes. Please don't baptize people without their permission.

That's part of the deal in infant baptism. Babies can't give their consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why does OP care if they're not even a practicing Catholic? By the Church's standards, you're not going to get to heaven just by being properly baptized if that is what OP thinks . . . .

Agree that you need psychological help OP if this truly makes you uneasy.

It's more of a hypocrisy problem. OP had her kid "baptized" without fully intending to/fully demonstrating raising a Catholic. "Being Baptized" isn't some golden ticket. It's a promise. Do what you want to now.

~Former Catholic who did not "baptize" my kids for show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does OP care if they're not even a practicing Catholic? By the Church's standards, you're not going to get to heaven just by being properly baptized if that is what OP thinks . . . .

Agree that you need psychological help OP if this truly makes you uneasy.

It's more of a hypocrisy problem. OP had her kid "baptized" without fully intending to/fully demonstrating raising a Catholic. "Being Baptized" isn't some golden ticket. It's a promise. Do what you want to now.

~Former Catholic who did not "baptize" my kids for show

No, for heavens sake please learn to read. The post says that “I” was baptized…the OP, not a thing about kids.

[Anonymous]

OP - I would not worry. I was baptized as were my children but I would not worry about this for a minute.

[Anonymous]

That is the funniest article I have ever read. I am not one of those who likes to mock others' faith. But this does show how ridiculous it is.

[Anonymous]

So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

Actually a Christian who’s heart breaks at people who wave the banner but leave hurt in their wake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

Actually a Christian who’s heart breaks at people who wave the banner but leave hurt in their wake.

Next time a little less snark might make your point in a more Christian way. Unless you’re the minister who criticized most Christians so you can seem cool, in which case all bets are off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

The truth shall set you free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much to respond to in this and the other thread . . .

The Catholic haters and religion haters in general should go find some other religion to criticize or at least correct their appalling ignorance. As just one example, Catholicism/Christianity is not a “bronze age” religion.

This entire debacle arose because one idiot priest, in violation of his oath of office, his duty, and what he would have been taught even in the most inadequate seminary in the world, decided it was beneath him to read the sacramental formula printed in large black letters on the white pages of the ritual book, and instead substituted his own personally manufactured alternative to satisfy his unfathomable egoism and be “inclusive,” among other ridiculous things.

Specifically, he modified the baptismal formula to change “I baptize you” (referencing an act of the priest in his role as “alter Christus”/another Christ) to “we baptize you” (referencing a corporate act by the community/congregation together. This rendered the Sacrament objectively invalid. The fact that baptism can. In an emergency, be celebrated by a non-cleric seems inapposite, because that was not happened here. The priest invoked “community” authority, rather than the authority of Christ; he did not stand aside and let someone else perform the baptism.

The “God will fix it” approach some PP’s have advocated is called “ecclesia supplet,” that is, the Church supplies for defects. The diocese, far more knowledgeable on such matters than anyone, particularly the Catholic haters, likely to be on this board, obviously decided that did not apply. If he’d said “I bat-tize” it possibly might have because the misspoken word would not confuse a reasonable observer about what was happening. Here, the priest substituted something he dreamed up rather than a mere misspoken word; he created a new “rite” and replaced baptism with it. The fact that baptism can be celebrated in many languages does not mean a priest has the latitude in any language to do what this one did.

The posters mocking traditional Catholic teaching on unbaptized infants, etc., obviously are ignorant of the concept of “baptism by desire,” whereby baptismal grace can be conferred even without the rite in some circumstances, if the individual or someone acting for them has a pure desire and, ordinarily cannot approach the sacrament.

Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer a particular grace. They are not magic, and whether or not the people this priest betrayed in his egotistical idiocy will have any explaining to do at the pearly gates is up to God. That said, the Church operates according to objective standards and, objectively, the baptisms in question here were not valid.

How Christian of you. Name calling a priest! You’ve clearly got the teachings down pat. SMH.

DP. Oh look, another atheist playing gotcha games. How mature of you.

Actually a Christian who’s heart breaks at people who wave the banner but leave hurt in their wake.

Next time a little less snark might make your point in a more Christian way. Unless you’re the minister who criticized most Christians so you can seem cool, in which case all bets are off.

The one who left “hurt” in his wake was the malignantly narcissistic cleric who put his ego over thousands of years of Church teaching.

[Anonymous]

Did the priest say why he chose to say "we."? It wasn't just a mistake or oversight I assume. But it's not clear from the articles I read why he chose to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the priest say why he chose to say "we."? It wasn't just a mistake or oversight I assume. But it's not clear from the articles I read why he chose to do that.

One of the dubious fruits of the Vatican II “New Mass” was the phrase “in these or similar words,” which, along with similar directions in other places, indicated that the priest was allowed to ad lib in those places as long as he kept to the same sense of things. Rather than being applied as written only to the specific places where improvisation was allowed, there arose and has persisted a culture of priests who think the Mass is their own to toy with as they wish. If the New Mass instructions had said “in these or worse words,” they would have been astoundingly accurate, because “styling” priests inevitably ad lib in a way inferior to the Mass text.

This priest chose those words to be “inclusive” and honor “the community,” rejecting his own unique role as a priest and the fact that the Roman Church is not Congregationalist. Sacramental power derives from God and is dispensed by his ministers. It does not flow from the community.

[Anonymous]

When it comes to the Catholic Church, only money talks. I wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising class action lawyer is gearing up for a lawsuit. Think of all the money people donated over the years by people thinking they were bona fide members of the Church. All the money spent on precana, funerals, weddings, baptisms, Catholic schooling, and so on. All of that money given under false pretenses because they weren’t actually members and weren’t required to give under the tenets of their faith.

I predict you see a massive case seeking refunds and damages, and the Church will then quickly change its tune on the validity of these baptisms and any subsequent sacraments.