https://www.foxnews.com/us/pastor-incorrectly-performed-thousands-baptisms-changing-1-word-invalid

A Catholic priest in Phoenix has apparently been using an incorrect a word during baptism ceremonies by saying "we" instead of "I." They're asking that all people baptized by him before June 2021 no longer take communion until they are really baptized using the right word.

https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/#FAQ

How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

Seems like a clerical error.

Quad Dog said:

---

Seems like a clerical error.

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Good grief Catholics.

If Getting the hocus pocus wrong invalidates the magic not just of that act but marriage, priest confirmation, any sacraments performed by that newly confirmed priest ect. Then surely somewhere early in the history of the Catholic Church someone performed a similar error that at this point could have propagated so far as to have the pope himself part of a false/broken chain of sacraments.

So maybe the pope isn't Catholic

Quote:

---

Father Andres Arango resigned from St. Gregory Catholic Church in Phoenix after it was determined he used the words "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of the correct phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," according to Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.

"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.

---

If Christ presides and baptizes, why would the priest messing up the language negate the baptism? Is
Christ limited by the words of the priest?

Captain Positivity said:

---

Quote:

---

Father Andres Arango resigned from St. Gregory Catholic Church in Phoenix after it was determined he used the words "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of the correct phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," according to Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.

"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.

---

If Christ presides and baptizes, why would the priest messing up the language negate the baptism? Is
Christ limited by the words of the priest?

---

It's pretty obvious in their explanation. The priest normally baptizes as Christ's minister. Hence when he says "I baptize you", it is Christ's words.

If the priest used the words "We baptize you", who is the "we"? Apparently the 'community'. Well the 'community' doesn't have the authority to baptize, only Christ. So whatever happened there wasn't valid since Christ wasn't presiding, the community was.

From the FAQ

Quote:

---

The Baptismal Formula (the words used in the Rite) has always been guarded for this reason: so it is clear that we receive our baptism through Jesus and not the community.

If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized. You will need to be baptized.

---

You know that time you were baptized as a baby and had no idea what was going on? Yeah, the priest used the wrong word. It's very important that you knew at the time that the church does not baptize people, but Christ does. So because you didn't know at the time that the church wasn't baptizing you because the priest use the wrong language, even though you didn't really know anything at the time because you were a baby, you no longer have salvation.

Captain Positivity said:

---

From the FAQ

Quote:

---

The Baptismal Formula (the words used in the Rite) has always been guarded for this reason: so it is clear that we receive our baptism through Jesus and not the community.

If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized. You will need to be baptized.

---

You know that time you were baptized as a baby and had no idea what was going on? Yeah, the priest used the wrong word. It's very important that you knew at the time that the church does not baptize people, but Christ does. So because you didn't know at the time that the church wasn't baptizing you because the priest use the wrong language, even though you didn't really know anything at the time because you were a baby, you no longer have salvation.

---

/baptists

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Captain Positivity said:

---

Quote:

---

Father Andres Arango resigned from St. Gregory Catholic Church in Phoenix after it was determined he used the words "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of the correct phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," according to Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.

"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.

---

If Christ presides and baptizes, why would the priest messing up the language negate the baptism? Is
Christ limited by the words of the priest?

---

It's pretty obvious in their explanation. The priest normally baptizes as Christ's minister. Hence when he says "I baptize you", it is Christ's words.

If the priest used the words "We baptize you", who is the "we"? Apparently the 'community'. Well the 'community' doesn't have the authority to baptize, only Christ. So whatever happened there wasn't valid since Christ wasn't presiding, the community was.

---

Not a Catholic, but God pretty commonly refers to Himself as We. So not sure what the issue is if Christ is saying "We". Just means the Trinity and not Christ alone.

Also a bit strange that Catholics accept any trinitarian baptism done by Protestants but won't accept their own priest "messing up" a word. Confusing all around

Quote:

---

If the priest used the words "We baptize you", who is the "we"? Apparently the 'community'. Well the 'community' doesn't have the authority to baptize, only Christ. So whatever happened there wasn't valid since Christ wasn't presiding, the community was.

---

Couldn't we just mean Christ and I? Or maybe the other priest nearby and I?

Good grief. Just when I start feeling guilty again about being a lazy Catholic, they modern church swoops in to fix that.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If the priest used the words "We baptize you", who is the "we"? Apparently the 'community'. Well the 'community' doesn't have the authority to baptize, only Christ. So whatever happened there wasn't valid since Christ wasn't presiding, the community was.

---

Couldn't we just mean Christ and I? Or maybe the other priest nearby and I?

---

I'm not familiar with how Catholics view the office of priest, but I would think that would be presumptuous. An emissary doesn't speak for himself, but for the one who sent him.

Simple solution...

Quote:

---

Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

If Getting the hocus pocus wrong invalidates the magic not just of that act but marriage, priest confirmation, any sacraments performed by that newly confirmed priest ect. Then surely somewhere early in the history of the Catholic Church someone performed a similar error that at this point could have propagated so far as to have the pope himself part of a false/broken chain of sacraments.

---

Wrong sacrament... and it's "Hoc est enim Corpus meum."

747Ag said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

If Getting the hocus pocus wrong invalidates the magic not just of that act but marriage, priest confirmation, any sacraments performed by that newly confirmed priest ect. Then surely somewhere early in the history of the Catholic Church someone performed a similar error that at this point could have propagated so far as to have the pope himself part of a false/broken chain of sacraments.

---

Wrong sacrament... and it's "Hoc est enim Corpus meum."

---

I actually did know the etymology on that one. We use it more broadly now

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Captain Positivity said:

---

Quote:

---

Father Andres Arango resigned from St. Gregory Catholic Church in Phoenix after it was determined he used the words "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of the correct phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," according to Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.

"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.

---

If Christ presides and baptizes, why would the priest messing up the language negate the baptism? Is
Christ limited by the words of the priest?

---

It's pretty obvious in their explanation. The priest normally baptizes as Christ's minister. Hence when he says "I baptize you", it is Christ's words.

If the priest used the words "We baptize you", who is the "we"? Apparently the 'community'. Well the 'community' doesn't have the authority to baptize, only Christ. So whatever happened there wasn't valid since Christ wasn't presiding, the community was.

---

Not a Catholic, but God pretty commonly refers to Himself as We. So not sure what the issue is if Christ is saying "We". Just means the Trinity and not Christ alone.

Also a bit strange that Catholics accept any trinitarian baptism done by Protestants but won't accept their own priest "messing up" a word. Confusing all around

---

I'm not sure you can take an action of one person and apply it equally to the Trinity. We don't say the Trinity assumed human nature, but rather the Son only.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure you can take an action of one person and apply it equally to the Trinity. We don't say the Trinity assumed human nature, but rather the Son only.

---

But actions are products of will, and the Trinity all shares the Divine Will. Unless Jesus is using his human will to baptize? If he even still has a human will after being resurrected. Or if he ever had one to begin with #monophysite. And now my head hurts

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure you can take an action of one person and apply it equally to the Trinity. We don't say the Trinity assumed human nature, but rather the Son only.

---

But actions are products of will, and the Trinity all shares the Divine Will. Unless Jesus is using his human will to baptize? If he even still has a human will after being resurrected. Or if he ever had one to begin with #monophysite. And now my head hurts

---

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III,q.3,a.4.

Article 4. Whether one Person without another can assume a created nature?

Objection 1. It would seem that one Person cannot assume a created nature without another assuming it. For "the works of the Trinity are inseparable," as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxviii). But as the three Persons have one essence, so likewise They have one operation. Now to assume is an operation. Therefore it cannot belong to one without belonging to another.

I answer that, As was said above (Article 1), assumption implies two things, viz. the act of assuming and the term of assumption. Now the act of assumption proceeds from the Divine power, which is common to the three Persons, but the term of the assumption is a Person, as stated above (Article 2). Hence what has to do with action in the assumption is common to the three Persons; but what pertains to the nature of term belongs to one Person in such a manner as not to belong to another; for the three Persons caused the human nature to be united to the one Person of the Son.

As a Catholic the thing that is most embarrassing about this story is that this lasted 25 years. Good Lord it shouldn't have gone past one "baptism". This should be day one stuff in seminary.

jrico2727 said:

---

As a Catholic the thing that is most embarrassing about this story is that this lasted 25 years. Good Lord it shouldn't have gone past one "baptism". This should be day one stuff in seminary.

---

I don't think that's the most embarrassing part.

jrico2727 said:

---

As a Catholic the thing that is most embarrassing about this story is that this lasted 25 years. Good Lord it shouldn't have gone past one "baptism". This should be day one stuff in seminary.

---

As a non-Catholic I am also surprised no one said anything in 25 years.

This is the kind of stupid crap that makes people leave the catholic church.

Gatekeeping to this kind of level is absolutely ridiculous. Sure the word was wrong, but I'm sure they can just write them all a blanket dispensation and be done with it. They have dispensed with much much worse over the history of the church. I really don't think God is that nitpicky over this, being pure human error and all... Fix the issue moving forward but wiping thousands baptisms (and any subsequent sacraments!) off the record is ******ed.

It was stupid that it was allowed to continue for 25 years. I am sure there were many that never spoke up and a few that did that were instantly dismissed.

Your take however is very wrong and almost insulting. I know there are many that agree with you, but its either a point of ignorance or disdain for Catholicism.

Catholicism is a sacramental faith. Baptism is the first of the Sacraments, a sacrament of institution, and a proper baptism is needed for reception of subsequent sacraments. So using the proper baptismal formula in the rite of Baptism is necessary for something so fundamental to our faith. Just because it was close, or they had the good intention may not be good enough, we are not the ultimate judge but it is appropriate that we should take all care, to make sure it is done correctly.

Some of yall on this thread seem to be ok if someone is baptized with Dr. Pepper as long as right thing was was intended.

What they are doing now, is the right thing, just incredibly late. I believe as soon as they are properly baptized it would then make all of the other sacraments they have received valid and they won't have to redo them as well. I am praying for those involved and hopefully it hasn't scandalized them too much and hopefully they can't keep the faith.

Thousands of people just got pushed back down to Catholic street cred level: Heathen.

Aggrad08 said:

---

If Getting the hocus pocus wrong invalidates the magic not just of that act but marriage, priest confirmation, any sacraments performed by that newly confirmed priest ect. Then surely somewhere early in the history of the Catholic Church someone performed a similar error that at this point could have propagated so far as to have the pope himself part of a false/broken chain of sacraments.

So maybe the pope isn't Catholic

---

This is basically a Catholic production of CoCo but instead of fighting over preserving your name, its a 25 year long probate case over salvation.

Its going to be hard to find a lawyer in heaven to defend your case. I've heard there aren't that many.

Catholics find new things to be upset/guilty about every single day. LOL.

The next time someone pulls out "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" just note that simply using the word we rather than I can hurt you deeply.

Baptism makes us adopted sons and daughters of God. Christ is the only begotten Son of God. So while our sonship is not the same as his, it is still a participation in that sonship. We are not God; but Jesus himself described our sonship by saying, "[Y]ou are gods" (Jn 10:34). His Sonship is uncreated and eternal. Ours is a grace; it is created and adoptive. But it is real. In the supernatural order as in the natural order, adoptive children are real children who enjoy the real paternity of their adoptive fathers.

What we receive by grace, however, is greater still than the gift we receive from our parents. Through baptism, we are more truly God's children than we are children of our earthly parents. Through baptism, we are more truly at home in heaven than in the place where we grew up. Saint Maximus Confessor said that we "become completely whatever God is, save at the level of being", and we receive for ourselves "the whole of God himself", in all his infinity, in all his eternity.

The Trinitarian formula is what Jesus commands the apostles to use when they baptize: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

More specifically, anybody even an atheist can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism.

Therefore, since baptism is performed by Jesus and the baptismal formula is provided by Jesus in scripture and confirmed by Tradition and the church, getting it right matters.

nortex97 said:

---

Catholics find new things to be upset/guilty about every single day. LOL.

---

Nice dig.

Quote:

---

The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism.

Therefore, since baptism is performed by Jesus and the baptismal formula is provided by scripture and confirmed by Tradition and the church, getting it right matters.

---

If Christ is performing the baptism, and Christ is perfect, flawless, etc. can baptism even be performed incorrectly?

jrico2727 said:

---

It was stupid that it was allowed to continue for 25 years. I am sure there were many that never spoke up and a few that did that were instantly dismissed.

Your take however is very wrong and almost insulting. I know there are many that agree with you, but its either a point of ignorance or disdain for Catholicism.

Catholicism is a sacramental faith. Baptism is the first of the Sacraments, a sacrament of institution, and a proper baptism is needed for reception of subsequent sacraments. So using the proper baptismal formula in the rite of Baptism is necessary for something so fundamental to our faith. Just because it was close, or they had the good intention may not be good enough, we are not the ultimate judge but it is appropriate that we should take all care, to make sure it is done correctly.

Some of yall on this thread seem to be ok if someone is baptized with Dr. Pepper as long as right thing was was intended.

What they are doing now, is the right thing, just incredibly late. I believe as soon as they are properly baptized it would then make all of the other sacraments they have received valid and they won't have to redo them as well. I am praying for those involved and hopefully it hasn't scandalized them too much and hopefully they can't keep the faith.

---

And that's why the wording is important. It's less about the wording and more about what that wording expresses about the disposition of the priest performing the sacrament. If baptism requires intent of the minister, and the minister is now "We", then is intent required from everyone in the room? The Church tends to presume baptisms are valid. For Her to say otherwise (with the implicit approval of Pope Francis of all people) indicates this is a grave error.

It's also important to remember how crummy secular reporting on these things can be. The true scandal and the danger here is not with those invalidly baptized, but instead with the priest and the poor catechesis this reveals.

God is merciful. He is not bound by the sacramental economy, and for those unaware of the error, I think most Catholics would argue that their Salvation was not at risk. But they were still deprived of real Sacramental grace, which is what makes this truly sad and scandalous.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism.

Therefore, since baptism is performed by Jesus and the baptismal formula is provided by scripture and confirmed by Tradition and the church, getting it right matters.

---

If Christ is performing the baptism, and Christ is perfect, flawless, etc. can baptism even be performed incorrectly?

---

As a Catholic, I believe in the divinely established authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, as established by Christ himself in Matthew 16 with Peter and his successors as its authoritative, singular head who is the vicar of Christ, to define and declare what constitutes authentic Christianity. I also believe that same church, guided by the Holy Spirit, authoritatively established the canon of scripture that makes up the divinely inspired word of God.

The Church and Sacred Scripture establish the proper matter and form of baptism. That's the end of it for me.