A Catholic priest in Arizona has resigned after it was revealed that he had used the phrase “We baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” during the baptismal ceremonies, not only invalidating those baptisms but all the sacraments that the unbaptized people subsequently went through.
Father Andres Arango resigned from the St Gregory parish church in Phoenix earlier this month after diocese leaders discovered he had mistakenly used the phrase “we baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” for years.
His error means that countless baptisms – an irrevocable requirement for salvation in Catholic theology – will have to be performed again. And some churchgoers could find their marriages are not recognized.
“An invalid baptism… invalidates any subsequent sacraments, especially confirmation, marriage, and holy orders,” the diocese of Phoenix said in a webpage intended to answer parishioners’ questions.
…The diocese of Phoenix website includes a form to register for a new baptism, and a spokesperson said that several churchgoers have already taken advantage. Any baptisms performed after 17 June last year, when the mistake was discovered, are considered valid, the diocese adds.
But anyone who was married after being baptized by Arango is asked to call the diocese urgently.
“If your baptism was invalid and you’ve received other sacraments, you may need to repeat some or all of those sacraments after you are validly baptized as well,” the website states.
So what exactly is the problem with using ‘we’ instead of ‘I’?
The font of knowledge on the matter is the Vatican’s 2020 congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which along with declaring Covid-19 vaccines “morally acceptable” also spelled out the correct words that needed to be used during baptisms.
The congregation “affirms that baptisms administered with modified formulas are invalid, including: ‘We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’,” the Vatican announced.
The congregation “affirms that baptisms administered with modified formulas are invalid, including: ‘We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’,” the Vatican announced.
The declaration was deemed necessary following questions over whether such phrasing meant that three separate holy entities were involved in the baptisms, or only one.
“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Olmsted wrote in a message posted to the Diocese of Phoenix website.
That clears things up, no?
What happens to those people who died after getting a baptism that they did not realize was not valid? Do they end up in Limbo like the other unbaptized? It seems a little unfair since it was not their fault that a priest messed up. Is there some sort of appeals process in the afterlife where they can make their case?
So many theological problems.
Don’t worry. The Mormons will baptize them posthumously.
I read about that a few days and thought it had to be a spoof. Are we to image God up in his throne room in the clouds looking down, saying “nope, you said ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ so that baby can’t go to heaven.” How can even the most rigidly rule-bound Catholic accept that?
Furthermore, everyone who didn’t get a valid baptism and later in life got married is doomed to hell? If the baptism sacrament was valid then the marriage sacrament wasn’t valid either and they are living in sin.
Too preposterous for words!
Just think about how many of the world’s people…were never even baptized by a Catholic priest. It is 88% of the world’s population. Including the Protestants and fundie xians among others.
They all have the same problem. Sentenced to Limbo or hell or purgatory or whatever fantasy the RCC believes in this day.
I wonder what percentage of affected Catholics will realize what a crock of shit it all is and move on.
That’s the Catholic god for you. All powerful, all knowing, all good and yet constrained by the words used by a Catholic priest.
I believe this is one of the reasons Catholics have been historically so obsessed with magic and with precise rituals for that magic. The words of a Catholic priest are sufficient to command and/or constrain god in some situations. It isn’t a big jump to thinking the right magical words can summon forth vast powers. At the same time trivial variations in wording matter and slip up even one word or pronunciation and the best you can hope for is that nothing happens.
Limbo huh? My mother used to be catholic, but she was excommunicated because she married my father a non catholic. She was in a hospital giving birth to her first child. It was stillborn. She asked the priest (it was a catholic hospital, of course) if her baby was going to heaven. The priest told her no, your baby was stillborn and never had a chance to know christ and was going to be in limbo forever. Two hours after she was told her baby was born dead. I was fourteen when I heard that for the first time and that is what set me firmly on the road to questioning my faith and ultimately becoming an atheist. Fuck the catholic church.
They used to kill eachother over stuff like this. Priorities, people.
They should stick to the original Hebrew. No high-falutin’ Latin or shit.
Hey, magical spells are notoriously fickle. If your local priest/shaman/wizard is too sloppy to follow the ancient recipe to the last jot and tittle, you can’t can’t blame Yeshua/Yahweh/the holy ghost for an unsatisfying outcome. You didn’t even read all of the
Biblefine print, did you?Perhaps we could encourage Randy Cassingham of “This is True” to issue them all “Get out of hell free’ cards.
Read your blog almost daily.
Robert B. Estrada
Levio-SAH, obviously.
I’m glad this guy is no longer a threat to the community.
Jesus Christ, it’s one word, I don’t think god cares.
Yes. The Church makes the rules; if the Church says there’s but one acceptable wording to qualify for that and further sacraments, there’s but one acceptable wording to qualify.
Don’t like the rules? Don’t be a Catholic.
Not a Catholic? Why then complain about the rules?
They’re for Catholics, they apply to Catholics.
John #14:
Do you deem it inappropriate to discuss the foolishness of rules if you don’t follow them? I can think of many reasons why one might do so. Where do you get “complain” from anyway?
file thirteen:
Nope. That’s why often point out the foolishness of religiosity.
Since this is about religion, of course it’s about foolishness. Duh.
Their foolishness suffices; no need for more.
From my lexicon.
More to the point, you just quoted me using that specific term, and your first question, having thus quoted it, replaced it with “discuss the foolishness”. So, you obviously considered the two were equivalent, until you got to your last sentence, where you ostensibly forgot that consideration.
@ardipithecus
I would guess 0. If transubstantiation didnt make them realize this nothing will
As we learned from Spider-Man: No Way Home, if you don’t get your magic spells just right the consequences can be disastrous.
From my lexicon.
I see the search up your own arse for pedantry is alive and well. Don’t insinuate that people are complaining if you’re not prepared to back up your own words, moron.
file thirteen:
So, in your estimation, neither the OP nor any of the comments here are complaining about it.
(Just like you are not complaining about my comment)
John, that’s twice now that you have insinuated that Mano complained, without explaining why. Twice now my comments have contained the inference that you need to justify that insinuation. I don’t think you missed that; I just think you’re a dickhead.
You really don’t think you’re complaining about me, do you, file thirteen?
Heh.
—
In passing (and more on topic), I like how people think it’s silly to worry about the specific wording of a ritual, when the ritual itself is rather silly.
??????
An iota of difference.