A priest with the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, named Father Andres Arango, has apparently been using the phrase “we baptize you in the name of the Father,” et. al., for his entire career, when he should have been using the word “I” instead.
Which potentially invalidates thousands of baptisms, affecting other sacraments such as confirmation and communion.
All over one word.
Jeez, they can’t cop to the mistake and say it’s okay?
Apparently South Park wasn’t a parody
Since god is such a stickler for grammar and presumably some of those baptized have passed away, where officially are they now? Hell? Limbo? I think maybe limbo isn’t a thing anymore.
Easy fix.
All that is required for a baptism to be valid (and hence to be recognized by the Catholic Church as a true baptism) is the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
The baptism does not need to be performed by a priest; any baptized Christian (even a non-Catholic) can perform a valid baptism. In fact, when the life of the person being baptized is in danger, even a non-baptized person who does not himself believe in Christ can perform a valid baptism, so long as he does so with the proper intent. In other words, if he intends what the Church intends—to baptize the person into the fullness of the Catholic Church—the baptism is valid.
700,000 years in Purgatory oughta set them right.
Following a link from the OP’s link, I see that the Pope specifically condemned this “we” language in 2020, identifying it as implying the heretical attitude that the important part of the ceremony is the family and community assembled to welcome the new arrival, rather than the presence of the Church employee reciting the liturgy. (my paraphrase; feel free to read the responsum in all its glory here).
It looks as though these people are going to have to run out and get baptized again ASAP, at the very least. Assuming they care to, of course.
Probably a lot of invalid marriages too.
You’re citing learnreligions.com to literally say that the Pope is wrong about Catholic law?
There are only two relevant paragraphs in your cite and you missed one of them (emphasis added):
All that is required for a baptism to be valid (and hence to be recognized by the Catholic Church as a true baptism) is the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
I have no idea how this might affect the status of sacraments received by these suddenly-non-Catholics subsequent to their non-baptism. Maybe someone will come along who might hazard a guess?
Christians: God is omnipotent
Also Christians: God doesn’t know the difference between ‘we’ and ‘I’.
I don’t think he’s disputing the judgment. He’s just declaring that no one has to run to a priest to get a real baptism–they can easily do it at home with anyone that happens to be around.
Which makes me wonder further–can I baptize myself?
I mean, who wouldn’t want to be part of a group where your special designations are dictated by wether or not the important man said the correct magic word.
God is known to be annoyingly pedantic, sometimes responding with biting sarcasm to prayers that have even minor grammatical errors. However, the Pope missed a trick here. This dilemma is easily resolved by spinning the “we” as meaning the “royal we” rather than a plural subject pronoun, thus casting the priest as a pompous jerk rather than mistakenly speaking in the collective. No need for a baptism do-over if you put the right spin on the incantation.
Is the correct grammar “Are you out there God, it’s me Margaret” or “Are you out there God, it is I, Margaret”?
“Are you out there, God, it is we, Margaret?"
“You will be assimilated”
God in His Love and Wisdom will accept either. Just don’t even think about “Lord bless and protect Margaret and I”. You will hear a thunderous roar, " ‘God bless I’, eh? Is that how you talk to the Lord Thy God? With illiterate hypercorrection?" and you will be smitten by a thunderbolt.
Man, that’s gotta be a bummer to have lived a righteous life, going to mass, doing all the good deeds, abstaining from sin, only to be told it doesn’t count because of a grammar error…
I wonder how many more of these lurk in the wings. I mean, suppose some priest made that same error 300 years ago, and it was never noticed, but then all those he’d baptized technically never were, and couldn’t have baptized others in turn, thus invalidating huge swaths of present day baptisms… Suppose Scipione Rebiba was never, in fact, properly baptized, due to some clerical error of that sort. Would that invalidate the consecration of all those priests that can trace their line of succession back to him?
…Is the pope catholic?
Can your cat baptize you, with its integrated baptizing instrument?
This is the Catholic Church, the highest moral authority. One of their priests has erred, so their only course of action is full and frank disclosure, immediate action to remove the priest and require his resignation, acknowledgement of the harm he has done with measures to do whatever they can to assist and compensate the innocent victims, while ensuring that such a thing can never happen again. Is there some reason that you were expecting something else?