Invalid Catholic Baptisms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a frivolous case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

“Baptism by desire” goes beyond the purely objective ruling made by the diocese under Vatican guidance in this case. The persons involved may well be subjectively validly baptized, but the Church in cases such as this deals in objective matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Adding: you don’t know a damned thing about sacramental theology, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

Our church requires you to be a member to receive sacraments.

My friend died and they refused his funeral in Darnestown because he was “no longer a member”, but a Gaithersburg church agreed to do it.

So yea, your not exactly correct about that “member” statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

Our church requires you to be a member to receive sacraments.

My friend died and they refused his funeral in Darnestown because he was “no longer a member”, but a Gaithersburg church agreed to do it.

So yea, your not exactly correct about that “member” statement.

Regardless what any given nitwit cleric, parish secretary or “bereavement coordinator” might think, a Roman Catholic is entitled to the pastoral care of the geographic parish in which they live. This is true whether or not they’ve ever “registered,” gotten an “envelope number,” or otherwise darkened the doorway of the place or contributed a nickel to its support and maintenance. Even a declared excommunication cannot deprive a Catholic of this right (although a funeral for such a person might involve some complications). If a parish denied your friend a Christian funeral on “lack of membership” grounds, this was a terrible disservice and uncharity, and might still be worth a complaint to the local bishop.

[Anonymous]

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.

Catholics can also baptize some one in an emergency.

I know plenty of evangelical Lutherans who are loosey-goosey. Are you LCMS or WELS? If not, some of them will give you the side eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this giving you anxiety? What do you think will happen?

Then take some water and baptize yourself. This realy doesn’t matter. Seems like a way just to invoke fear and get people to pay more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this giving you anxiety? What do you think will happen?

I don't know. I'm not even Catholic anymore (still Christian, though). It's just making me uneasy.

There's lots in the Catholic church to make people uneasy, which may be part of the reason you left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this giving you anxiety? What do you think will happen?

Then take some water and baptize yourself. This realy doesn’t matter. Seems like a way just to invoke fear and get people to pay more money.

You can't baptized yourself.

[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.

Catholics can also baptize some one in an emergency.

I know plenty of evangelical Lutherans who are loosey-goosey. Are you LCMS or WELS? If not, some of them will give you the side eye.

As a former LCMS Lutheran, I can confirm that there are plenty of loosey-goosey LCMS parishes that don't follow the synod's rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

There is no tithing requirement, but the basket gets passed every week. My family used to receive little envelopes in the mail so the parish could keep track. If it was for “tax” purposes there was never a receipt. If the collections fell short, the parish school would charge you more tuition. So I do think I know what I’m talking about. Never saw any folks off the street come in to put money in that basket.

[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.

+1
Cradle Catholic here, and I think the diocese is nuts. Sacraments aren't magic spells. If you think that God withheld baptismal grace because a priest used the wrong pronoun, well, your God is small and petty and circumscribed. Much like you, with your nasty, unkind, mean-spirited words about a person who obviously meant well. So many people who care so very much about whether the table is perfectly set, and not at all about what food is being served, and whether all feel welcome to partake of the bounty.

Also, it's kind of like the flip side of quid mus sumit. Which I learned meant, basically, God will figure it out. Do you trust that, or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Catholicism doesn't have "members" and there's no requirement to give under the tenets of that faith.
Maybe try knowing a little about which you speak.

That said... I think the whole thing is a little silly. If infants can have baptism by desire, than surely that can "count" as well for those who clearly desired and truly thought they were validly baptised.
My guess is this will be very easy to fix for those who care, and a funny story at happy hour for those who don't.

There is no tithing requirement, but the basket gets passed every week. My family used to receive little envelopes in the mail so the parish could keep track. If it was for “tax” purposes there was never a receipt. If the collections fell short, the parish school would charge you more tuition. So I do think I know what I’m talking about. Never saw any folks off the street come in to put money in that basket.

One year, in a parish my family belonged to when I was a kid, at the end of the year, they published the amount people had given in those little envelopes. Parishioners were outraged, including my mother, who didn't even know she had separate envelopes from my Dad. He gave a respectable amount, while she apparently gave $5 or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this giving you anxiety? What do you think will happen?

Then take some water and baptize yourself. This realy doesn’t matter. Seems like a way just to invoke fear and get people to pay more money.

You can't baptized yourself.

Then have someone else do it. So you really believe that you won’t get into heave because of this “invalid” baptism? Do you think babies who die in child ord go straight to hell?