Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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".
RCC - One Pronoun Invalidates Thousands of Baptisms
- Thread starter Phil D.
- Start date
- Status
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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."
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
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".
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
On a historical note, this general issue apparently isn't new in the RCC. From the Council of Revenna, 1311 AD:
The situation also reminds me of the provisional formulary frequently seen in medieval RCC liturgies. For example, this French liturgy from c.1400 AD:
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...
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...
Last edited:
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
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?
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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?!
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?!
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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.
I doubt it.
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Professor
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.
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.
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..."
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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...."
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
As you can see, it is a link to @Travis Fentiman 's Reformed Books Online which has a section on this topic as well:
reformedbooksonline.com
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, 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
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks for sharing this! It looks very helpful.On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
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, 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…
Definitely a resource to file away and pray that our Sessions will need!
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
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, 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…
- Status
