# RCC - One Pronoun Invalidates Thousands of Baptisms



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

The Roman Catholic Church has declared thousands of baptisms performed by a priest to be invalid, as the term "we baptize" was used instead of "I baptize".


----------



## Taylor (Feb 15, 2022)

Oh well.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JH (Feb 15, 2022)

_Laughs in RPCGA_

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Oh well.


Very insightful.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2022)

Souls condemned due to the wrong pronoun.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 15, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Very insightful.


For people whose souls are in peril every day, who have no gospel, who prostrate themselves before images, who blaspheme Christ in their Mass, and who test the patience of the Lord with their abominable false worship, that some priest forgot to use the right pronoun in some baptisms is the very least of their worries.

Hence my "Oh well."

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 15, 2022)

Some problematic comments from the article.



> "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 said.



But the Minister isn't Christ, so by this logic the formula ought to be "He now baptizes you..." and not "I now baptize you".



> "Baptism is a requirement for salvation," according to the Diocese of Phoenix.



The RCC has been schizophrenic on this issue over the years. Baptism is a requirement. You can be saved without it. I wish they'd make up their minds.



> On that page, the diocese stated that if a baptism is invalid, and you've received other sacraments, you may need to repeat some or all of them once your baptism is eventually valid.
> 
> Answering a question on the FAQ page if an invalid baptism would impact those married by the church, the diocese stated: "Maybe! Unfortunately, there is no single clear answer."
> 
> In his statement, Olmsted said that he did not believe Arango meant "to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments."



So if you got sprinkled by this guy, then grew up and got married, you're not really married because you weren't really baptized. Oh boy! What a train wreck.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## chuckd (Feb 15, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> But the Minister isn't Christ, so by this logic the formula ought to be "He now baptizes you..." and not "I now baptize you".


The minister often makes authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ. I'm not saying the baptisms are invalid, but it's an erroneous view, correct? The "community" doesn't baptize.

WCF 27.3 The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments* rightly used*, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and *the word of institution*, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 15, 2022)

What if the priest identified as more than one person?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 15, 2022)

Personally I’m of the conviction that their baptisms are invalid anyhow, infant or otherwise as I do not believe them to be a true Christian church.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

On a historical note, this general issue apparently isn't new in the RCC. From the Council of Revenna, 1311 AD:

The mystery of baptism is first and foremost among the sacraments. As such, it is essential for it to be administered in the manner [i.e. using the phraseology] in which Christ instituted and taught, to which we must remain wholly faithful and not ignore. We therefore restate the precise words written, which are still to be used: (‘Peter’, or ‘Mary’), ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’—while sprinkling or immersing three times—with nothing being added or left out.​(translated from: P. Labbe, G. Cossart, _Sacrosancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem Exacta_, Paris: 1671, 11.2:1584f.)​​Of course the NT doesn't provide a precise pronoun in its mandates or examples of baptism, so in a practical sense such becomes a matter for churches to properly deduce.

The situation also reminds me of the provisional formulary frequently seen in medieval RCC liturgies. For example, this French liturgy from c.1400 AD:

Then the priest shall take water from the laver, and having asked the infant’s name, pour it over their head three times, while saying, '(Name), if you are not already baptized, then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.'​(translated from: Edmundi Martène, _De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus Libri_, Rotterdam: 1700, 1:128.)​
This practice was carried out due to the considerable number of infants who may have been baptized at home by a priest or even midwife, which due to the belief that baptism was necessary to salvation was commonly done when there was a good possibility that the child would die before they could be baptized via the full sacramental ceremony. In cases where they did recover, they would be brought to the church, where the given provisional formulary was employed.

I think both situation do pose some interesting questions...


----------



## Jack K (Feb 15, 2022)

It does raise some interesting questions about our own practice. In most of our churches, we too use the phrase "I baptize you..." as part of the pronouncement. And we too would claim that in some sense the minister is speaking on behalf of Christ during a worship service, and that the minister rather than the whole congregation is performing the baptism (which makes "I" more appropriate than "we").

But I can't recall ever hearing a Reformed churchman say that "I baptize you..." should be understood as words coming from Christ. On the matter of who is ultimately validating the baptism _in a spiritual sense_, our answer is found the latter part of the pronouncement: "...in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Right?

Is there more here to ponder about the word "I," or does that pretty much cover it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

Jack K said:


> It does raise some interesting questions about our own practice. In most of our churches, we too use the phrase "I baptize you..." as part of the pronouncement. And we too would claim that in some sense the minister is speaking on behalf of Christ during a worship service, and that the minister rather than the whole congregation is performing the baptism (which makes "I" more appropriate than "we").
> 
> But I can't recall ever hearing a Reformed churchman say that "I baptize you..." should be understood as words coming from Christ. On the matter of who is ultimately validating the baptism _in a spiritual sense_, our answer is found the latter part of the pronouncement: "...in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Right?
> 
> Is there more here to ponder about the word "I," or does that pretty much cover it?


I would agree. The Great Commission plainly tells _the disciples_ to baptize. As such I think the usual use of "I" is most appropriate. At the same time, I have trouble seeing the ommission of "I" as invaldating the rite. It essentially makes a single unspecified if logical pronoun equivalent to a security code of sorts, on which the efficacy of the entire ordinance rests.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

A few somewhat speculative thoughts on the particular events noted in the OP....

A theoretical possibility could be that the priest's use of "we" was simply inadvertent, or meant in the general sense of "I, on Christ's behalf." However, if that were the case, or even the most likely case, then officially declaring those baptisms invalid with, as Sean noted, all the significant peripheral consequences that entails would seem very extreme. However, as I've read a little more on the situation there are some allusions to the possibility that the priest intentionally and in some cases openly used "we" as a term of inclusion with regard to the church community, and especially the parents and/or godparents. Of course that possibility, while perhaps making the decision a bit more understandable, raises another glaring question: where on earth have his bishop and other church officials been while this has been going on for the last twenty years?!


----------



## jw (Feb 15, 2022)

“They were already invalid for a different reason.”

- J.H. Thornwell (paraphrased)

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 15, 2022)

jw said:


> “They are invalid for a different reason.”
> 
> - J.H. Thornwell (paraphrased)


Sure, I realize this is the belief of many Reformed, and perhaps a majority here on PB. Yet, that being said, it seems that is likely a minority position within the larger Reformed community. Historically it has been debated amongst Protestants ever since Martin Luther. Further, and this is the main intent of this thread, is to consider some of the issues it raises that have relevance to various aspects of baptismal practice in general.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Feb 15, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Sure, I realize this is . . . perhaps a majority here on PB.


I doubt it.


----------



## Edward (Feb 15, 2022)

> if a baptism is invalid, and you've received other sacraments, you may need to repeat some or all of them once your baptism is eventually valid.



That could be a solution to the divorce problem for Catholics not rich or powerful enough to buy an annulment.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Zach (Feb 15, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Sure, I realize this is the belief of many Reformed, and perhaps a majority here on PB. Yet, that being said, it seems that is likely a minority position within the larger Reformed community. Historically it has been debated amongst Protestants ever since Martin Luther. Further, and this is the main intent of this thread, is to consider some of the issues it raises that have relevance to various aspects of baptismal practice in general.


It is my understanding from reading Peter Wallace's dissertation on the Old School Presbyterian Church that the first Reformed church to declare Roman Catholic baptism invalid was the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in the 1840s (which Wallace points out came during a wave of stong anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment in the country). I have no reason to question his research but was very surprised when I read that.

I'd be genuinely curious where people here stand but, regardless, I think it's instructive that despite all their polemics with Rome the churches of the Reformation did not declare their baptisms invalid.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Feb 15, 2022)

So just to clarify my understanding.. are the above posts implying most paedobaptists would hold to the WCF chapter 28 paragraph 7 in such a way that they would include those baptized in the RCC? I guess that's what the plain reading of that paragraph would indicate... but, I did not realize that.


----------



## Zach (Feb 15, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> So just to clarify my understanding.. are the above posts implying most paedobaptists would hold to the WCF chapter 28 paragraph 7 in such a way that they would include those baptized in the RCC? I guess that's what the plain reading of that paragraph would indicate... but, I did not realize that.


It's a debated question. While I haven't studied the issue in-depth, I would imagine that the crux of the argument against hinges more on WCF 28.2: "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto," particularly whether that last part can apply to Roman Catholic priests.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 15, 2022)

It was said above, "their baptisms are invalid anyhow, infant or otherwise" – though I recall neither Luther or Calvin were re-baptized.

And for the record, I believe there are many simple Roman Catholics who believe in, and cleave to, the Lord Jesus _despite_ the blasphemous teachings and practices of that organization. Likewise for the EO.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## KMK (Feb 16, 2022)

LBC Chapter 22:2 "These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according b to the commission of Christ."

A minister says "I baptize you" because he is the one qualified and called according to the commission of Christ. I guess if you had multiple ministers baptizing the same person at the same time you could say, "We baptize you." Or some might prefer, "We all baptize y'all..."


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Feb 16, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Some problematic comments from the article.
> 
> 
> 
> *But the Minister isn't Christ, so by this logic the formula ought to be "He now baptizes you..." and not "I now baptize you".*



In Romanist sacramental theology the priest acts _In Persona Christi. _Therefore the priest is wholly identified with Christ Himself when he administers a sacrament.

This kind is spiritual neurosis can also be found in scrupulous Roman traditionalists who will listen intently in Confession to make sure the priest correctly pronounced the Latin _Ego te absolvo _rather than _Ego absolvo_ for instance. The same goes for the words of consecration at Mass. So basically God will withhold forgiveness and salvation if the priest doesn't utter the correct Magical Formula.

As an aside, in the Eastern Orthodox Church the priest does not act _in persona Christi _and states "The servant of God _name _is baptized...."

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## kodos (Feb 16, 2022)

On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:


https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-reformed-churches-and-roman-catholic-baptism-an-anthology-of-principle-texts.pdf



As you can see, it is a link to @Travis Fentiman 's Reformed Books Online which has a section on this topic as well:








On the Roman Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid, that the Reformers’ Ministerial Calling was Valid, the Necessity of Separation from Her & Whether Romanists may be Saved


“…that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of Go…




reformedbooksonline.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Feb 16, 2022)

kodos said:


> On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
> 
> 
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-reformed-churches-and-roman-catholic-baptism-an-anthology-of-principle-texts.pdf
> ...


Thanks for sharing this! It looks very helpful.

Definitely a resource to file away and pray that our Sessions will need!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Feb 16, 2022)

kodos said:


> On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
> 
> 
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-reformed-churches-and-roman-catholic-baptism-an-anthology-of-principle-texts.pdf
> ...


This link states that the WCF affirms the validity of RCC baptism, but I cannot find anything anywhere on the page to back up that claim. Also, I'm struggling to find that affirmation in the WCF. Does anyone know what this is referring to?


----------

