Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

This is also just begging the question about what exactly a baptism is, isn't, and what it does/doesn't accomplish. This is an easy pile on about a catholic priest undoing the salvation of thousands through a mispoken phrase.
But If you really want to hit 10 pages, we gotta shift this conversation to questions like, is single immersion baptism allowed? What about sprinkling?, If I get dunked 3 times and slip and fall and go under a fourth, did I just make a heretical statement about the nature of a Quadrune God?

---

Depends. Were you quad dunked on a Sunday? I would think that would nullify the agreement. Quad dunking on a weekday though you should be okay.

Then we need to get into the residual baptismal splash upon the one assisting in the Baptism. Are they re-baptized each time. Again, I think as long as the sum total of initial baptisms, and residual splashes, received on a Sunday ultimately end up in a multiple of three, you can simply divide back to end up with a true Father, Son, Holy Spirit process.

---

I only attend churches that believe a fourth immersion means you've just rotated back to 'The Father' and that you have to do it two more times to even it out.

Our local parish had to switch out the baptismal from fiberglass lined pool to a plaster pool because it was causing heresies. Had to use the pastor's brother's pool company to do it as well.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

This is also just begging the question about what exactly a baptism is, isn't, and what it does/doesn't accomplish. This is an easy pile on about a catholic priest undoing the salvation of thousands through a mispoken phrase.
But If you really want to hit 10 pages, we gotta shift this conversation to questions like, is single immersion baptism allowed? What about sprinkling?, If I get dunked 3 times and slip and fall and go under a fourth, did I just make a heretical statement about the nature of a Quadrune God?

---

Depends. Were you quad dunked on a Sunday? I would think that would nullify the agreement. Quad dunking on a weekday though you should be okay.

Then we need to get into the residual baptismal splash upon the one assisting in the Baptism. Are they re-baptized each time. Again, I think as long as the sum total of initial baptisms, and residual splashes, received on a Sunday ultimately end up in a multiple of three, you can simply divide back to end up with a true Father, Son, Holy Spirit process.

---

I only attend churches that believe a fourth immersion means you've just rotated back to 'The Father' and that you have to do it two more times to even it out.

Our local parish had to switch out the baptismal from fiberglass lined pool to a plaster pool because it was causing heresies. Had to use the pastor's brother's pool company to do it as well.

---

You should just use the pastor's brother's pool for baptisms. As the owner of a pool company I'm sure it's awesome. Then once the proper thrice dunking has occurred you can immediately start the post Baptismal celebratory pot luck/ pool party.

To your point there is what is known as the Baptism of Desire. It is an extreme circumstance which this clearly is. Often it could be attributed to say a martyr who was killed for Christ before they could be baptized or say St. Dysmas who accepted Christ on the Cross and couldn't have received baptism. As it has been said by several Catholics on this thread that humans are bound by the sacraments and God isn't.

However, I really feel that dialogue with you is at this time is pointless since you clearly have an agenda against the Catholic Church. Hopefully you can remedy it for it is not good to spread slander and deceit about the body of Christ.

jrico2727 said:

---

To your point there is what is known as the Baptism of Desire. It is an extreme circumstance which this clearly is. Often it could be attributed to say a martyr who was killed for Christ before they could be baptized or say St. Dysmas who accepted Christ on the Cross and couldn't have received baptism. As it has been said by several Catholics on this thread that humans are bound by the sacraments and God isn't.

However, I really feel that dialogue with you is at this time is pointless since you clearly have an agenda against the Catholic Church. Hopefully you can remedy it for it is not good to spread slander and deceit about the body of Christ.

---

To your first point. Very interesting.

To your second point. There you go again with the tired, sad, lazy argument that anyone daring to disagree with the Church only does so becuase they are an uneducated Prot.

No where on this thread have I slandered the Church. I never said the RCCs position was that grace can from man. I merely pointed out the absurdity of their logical arguments and fascination with technicalities.

It's okay to ask questions of those who suppose to tell you what you must do.

jrico2727 said:

---

To your point there is what is known as the Baptism of Desire. It is an extreme circumstance which this clearly is. Often it could be attributed to say a martyr who was killed for Christ before they could be baptized or say St. Dysmas who accepted Christ on the Cross and couldn't have received baptism. As it has been said by several Catholics on this thread that humans are bound by the sacraments and God isn't.

However, I really feel that dialogue with you is at this time is pointless since you clearly have an agenda against the Catholic Church. Hopefully you can remedy it for it is not good to spread slander and deceit about the body of Christ.

---

Man, you can't stand the weakest critique of the catholic church. Is there anything someone could critique the catholic church for and not be called to have an agenda or that they're ignorant?

This is your chance to educate us on why your password view of baptism is correct. You haven't been able to. You even bring up an exception that the catholic church has created. Can there not be exceptions for this instance of We vs I as well? And, by the way, that exception of Baptism of Desire has to exist, or their whole canon on baptism would come crumbling down as saints and martyrs would be deemed relegated to hell. It would be obvious the Catholic Church has no authority over baptism.)

We are clearly in the realm that the Catholic Church thinks their authority is derived through words, not faith or hearts, or actions.

Quote:

---

I don't believe a "man in robes" is the only one that can be entrusted with Gods authority and instruction. We are all called to be Saints!

---

Not all saints are called to the priesthood. All Israel were priests, but the priestly functions were not by all. Careful not to repeat the sin of Korah.

Quote:

---

I don't think I or anyone was excluding them from grace. Rather when it was known that baptisms were preformed incorrectly they couldn't just lie to themselves and operate under the impression that the were.

They had to remedy the issue. I think the article said that the Bishop said that anyone who had died under the presumption of being baptized would have had that grace since they had the desire and the knowledge that they had a valid baptism. However for the majority of them, it is known now what they received wasn't valid and they had to correct that issue ASAP.

---

You need to clarify what receiving an invalid baptism means, if not that grace is precluded. Seems like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You also need to clarify whether "performing" a baptism incorrectly - an error on the part of the celebrant - means anything. I say no. I've served at the altar plenty of times and priests fumble prayers. I've never once thought that if a priest misspeaks somehow the Liturgy is invalidated.

If "correcting the issue" means "being baptized" then you're saying the first baptism lacked grace. I can't see how it couldn't. You can't be baptized twice, so if you have yet to be (correctly) baptized you never were. QED.

The Authority of the Church is derived from Christ, her founder and head. He gave the Church to be the arbitrator of faith and morals to the world. Some have chosen to reject her, and by such have rejected Christ who sent her. The Church has deemed these baptisms invalid. I understand why, and think that they are handling it they best way they can now. I have tried to explain the best way I can to you all why, clearly I did poorly, and for that I repent. Also, as a son of the Church I do see her as my Mother, and if someone's tone and demeanor about the Church get to the point I don't think I can have a charitable discussion with them any further, I will end the discussion. Far better for world to judge me by folly than for me to give into anger.

Tone and demeanor!!! Goodness gracious.I'm sorry that pointing out logical fallacies upsets you. Remember only one of us said the other was too dumb and ignorant to understand the situation, and it wasn't me.

However, I'm glad you said what you did because it brings us to the ultimate end of all discussions between Catholics and non-Catholics.

"Well it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, or that it isn't in the Bible. The Chirch gets to decide what's wrong and what's right, so to that I acquiesce."

End of discussion.

Peace to You!!

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think I or anyone was excluding them from grace. Rather when it was known that baptisms were preformed incorrectly they couldn't just lie to themselves and operate under the impression that the were.

They had to remedy the issue. I think the article said that the Bishop said that anyone who had died under the presumption of being baptized would have had that grace since they had the desire and the knowledge that they had a valid baptism. However for the majority of them, it is known now what they received wasn't valid and they had to correct that issue ASAP.

---

You need to clarify what receiving an invalid baptism means, if not that grace is precluded. Seems like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You also need to clarify whether "performing" a baptism incorrectly - an error on the part of the celebrant - means anything. I say no. I've served at the altar plenty of times and priests fumble prayers. I've never once thought that if a priest misspeaks somehow the Liturgy is invalidated.

If "correcting the issue" means "being baptized" then you're saying the first baptism lacked grace. I can't see how it couldn't. You can't be baptized twice, so if you have yet to be (correctly) baptized you never were. QED.

---

To the first point, in an invalid baptism, the sacramental grace would be precluded. God is not limited to the sacraments, there are other ways (the aforementioned baptism of desire) through which grace is dispensed.

I'm of the belief that an unintentional error on the part of the celebrant would not be an invalid baptism, consecration, etc. But the priest in Phoenix was not "fumbling over words." He used an improper formula that showed a lack of understanding (and thus intent) for 20+ years.

Correcting the issue does mean being baptized again. The first baptism did lack the sacramental grace. I would liken it to the Catholic Church's teaching on a member of an isolated tribe that has never heard the word of God. Members of that tribe who seek God through their conscience can be saved (through Christ's sacrifice) despite never hearing His name in their lifetimes. Does that mean we stop missionary trips because they can be saved through other means? No. It would be just as irresponsible to let those invalidly baptized live in the same ignorance as the tribe.

And I take offense at your use of QED. Leave the Latin to us papists.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think I or anyone was excluding them from grace. Rather when it was known that baptisms were preformed incorrectly they couldn't just lie to themselves and operate under the impression that the were.

They had to remedy the issue. I think the article said that the Bishop said that anyone who had died under the presumption of being baptized would have had that grace since they had the desire and the knowledge that they had a valid baptism. However for the majority of them, it is known now what they received wasn't valid and they had to correct that issue ASAP.

---

You need to clarify what receiving an invalid baptism means, if not that grace is precluded. Seems like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

They received Grace by their Faith and their firm intention to be baptized or to baptize their children. God knows their heart. These people continued in there faith, received other sacraments and lived life in the Church, so clearly grace in their lives is evident. However the Church and the Bishop have determined that the error was grave enough to where the Church couldn't let them continue as though it was a true baptism. So if they didn't have a valid baptism in the eyes of the Church that should be all we need to know.


You also need to clarify whether "performing" a baptism incorrectly - an error on the part of the celebrant - means anything. I say no. I've served at the altar plenty of times and priests fumble prayers. I've never once thought that if a priest misspeaks somehow the Liturgy is invalidated.

Here is the issue. Most here are giving the priest the charity of assuming he made the change out a simple mistake or misunderstanding. I am not giving him that charity. This is clearly my own judgement but given the fact that this was done thousands of times and for 25 years and given the state of certain seminaries in the 70's and 80's, I feel it is reasonable for me to take this stance.

I too have served at the altar and have seen mistakes made, I have even had a priest forget the prayer of absolution in confession and didn't question the validity of the sacrament, personally. I think the Church knows more than they have release about this priest's intentions, and I trust the judgment of the Church.


If "correcting the issue" means "being baptized" then you're saying the first baptism lacked grace. I can't see how it couldn't. You can't be baptized twice, so if you have yet to be (correctly) baptized you never were. QED.

I agree. I think their faith brought them grace initially since they performed their party dutifully. if the baptism was not acceptable to the Church it did lack the full grace that it was intended to have and that is why the Church decided that it had to be given correctly, and it would be only one Baptism that they had received.

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Tone and demeanor!!! Goodness gracious.I'm sorry that pointing out logical fallacies upsets you. Remember only one of us said the other was too dumb and ignorant to understand the situation, and it wasn't me.

However, I'm glad you said what you did because it brings us to the ultimate end of all discussions between Catholics and non-Catholics.

"Well it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, or that it isn't in the Bible. The Chirch gets to decide what's wrong and what's right, so to that I acquiesce."

End of discussion.

Peace to You!!

---

It's unfortunate when a fellow Catholic engages in a debate but does quite have the most effective communication tools on hand, and all of the time. However, though their argument may not avoid logical fallacies, it does not mean the point they are trying to convey is inaccurate. Everything the Church does is derived from sacred scripture and sacred tradition .

I don't see how there is a difference between fumbling over the word and saying the word wrong.

Does the intent of the priest matter? Or the words he says? What if the same priest said I but mentally said we with his fingers crossed?

I'd go on record to say that my opinion (of whatever worth) is that his error, even if made with intent, doesn't invalidate the grace of baptism.

Zobel said:

---

I don't see how there is a difference between fumbling over the word and saying the word wrong.

Does the intent of the priest matter? Or the words he says? What if the same priest said I but mentally said we with his fingers crossed?

I'd go on record to say that my opinion (of whatever worth) is that his error, even if made with intent, doesn't invalidate the grace of baptism.

---

The invalid form precluded sacramental grace. I don't think the priest in this situation fumbled. He seems to have willfully used "we" instead of "I". But God is not limited to the sacraments as a means of grace. He gave us the sacraments and the respective formula as an objective means of knowing that the grace promised to us in the sacrament is indeed provided. Failing to conform with the formula cuts off the grace of THAT sacrament for THAT person, but God is not bound by the sacrament, having given it to us so that we can know that we have received what the sacrament promises. As you pointed out above, I am sure many of these people went on to live lives that were evidently effected with grace.

It's really hard not to read this as "the priest messed up so they were never baptized but it doesn't matter".

If you say God isn't bound by the sacrament why is He bound by the performance of the sacrament? What's got the power here - the technique or the God we appeal to?

Agreed.

+++

As with many things the RCC does, it took some time doing it. I hope to think that Bishop Olmsted of the diocese of Phoenix sought consultation all the way up the chain of command. This goes back to a doctrinal response issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Morandi, in June, 2020. Clearly other diocese were deviating from the norm, and it became an issue.

This Bishop is taking no chances and I'm sure understood the scandal it would cause due to the length of time and the number of persons affected. In a way, he is doing what he feels is the best way to remedy a fault he personally knows about. I wish other Bishops had taken the same approach with pedophile Priests, instead of keeping it quiet and reassigning them. Those days are hopefully over and my heart goes out to all those victims. My heart also goes out to all of these people and others who are now wondering if their baptism is valid.

Some on here, understandably, do not see what the fuss is all about. It was already stated by Bishop Olmsted that God is not bound by the sacraments, but that the sacraments are bound to God. In other words, those people who believed they were baptized validly - are. God's grace does not rely on Grammarly. However, if Father Andres presided at your baptism - you need to remedy that as soon as possible! That's it, end of discussion. No other priest, deacon, bishop, or person was mentioned in his message posted January 22, 2022.

I just checked, I was baptized by Fr. Hugh Clarke in Corpus Christi, TX. This priest, who died in 2002, was found guilty of molesting 3 altar boys during the time I attended Christ the King school in the mid 70s. As tragic and shocking as that was - God still worked through him and my first memory was of my baptism. I was baptized a couple of years after being born and remember the water being poured over me. This memory came back to me when, as a kid at Christ the King, we toured the church. The baptismal font was in a rear chapel behind some doors. It was a surreal experience.

As others have pointed out, the RCC has backed itself into a corner with all of the doctrinal letters, but it is my hope that this situation will be the exception and not the norm.

4 pages?

The priest may have gotten it wrong. Pretty sure God got it right.

Zobel said:

---

It's really hard not to read this as "the priest messed up so they were never baptized but it doesn't matter".

If you say God isn't bound by the sacrament why is He bound by the performance of the sacrament? What's got the power here - the technique or the God we appeal to?

---

Sort of… in Catholicism a sacrament is a "sacred sign," something visibly manifesting the invisible glory and workings of God..

The 7 sacraments are both signs and causes of grace. As Aquinas puts it, "they effect what they signify."

In other words, each of the seven sacraments does something: baptism cleanses us of original sin and brings us into the family of God, confirmation confirms our baptism and sends us on mission, the Eucharist gives us the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, confession forgives our sins, matrimony unites us like Christ to his Church, holy orders ordains us to act in the person of Christ, and the anointing of the sick heals us of bodily and especially spiritual ailments. This is what I think might be responsive to your point: each of these sacraments uses visible signs so that we can better know and believe what's invisibly occurring. The form and matter of the sacrament, when properly conducted, provide an objective means of knowing the grace of the sacrament has been conferred.

Perhaps using the example of the sacrament of reconciliation is helpful. If a person is perfectly contrite, he or she can receive the grace of forgiveness and healing for serious/mortal sin, but how can we know if our contrition is perfect? When we confess to a priest and repent, the priest's words of absolution given in persona christi to the penitent are an objective means of knowing that we are forgiven and washed clean of the serious sin we confess. Now, it's certainly possible that God can forgive whomsoever he chooses to forgive in whatever manner is pleasing to him. But Jesus gave us a church and instituted the sacrament so that we could have a visible sign to help us accept God's grace and grow from it.

K but if the priest says it wrong you're saying not only do you not know if it did "work," you can affirm the negative - it didn't.

Quote:

---

It was already stated by Bishop Olmsted that God is not bound by the sacraments, but that the sacraments are bound to God. In other words, those people who believed they were baptized validly - are. God's grace does not rely on Grammarly. However, if Father Andres presided at your baptism - you need to remedy that as soon as possible!

---

What needs to be remedied? You said people who believed they were valid - are. So if they are valid, then there is nothing to remedy, right?

Bringing up the curious case of the baptism which was believed to be valid and therefore was until this issue was raised and then it wasn't.

Zobel said:

---

K but if the priest says it wrong you're saying not only do you not know if it did "work," you can affirm the negative - it didn't.

---

You're right. If the form was invalid the grace of the sacrament is not conveyed. But God may certainly convey grace, sua sponte. However, the sacrament has not been properly "engaged" and so the benefits of the sacrament have not been conveyed.

I am probably just not smart enough to follow the criticism being offered, but I am not seeing why this is a problem. Sorry.

All seems entirely too mechanistic and magical for me. And forgive me but this kind of thinking - we do x and then y is obliged to happen - is awfully pagan in flavor.

To you and Zobel,

Catholic baptisms are recorded. Who did them and when. Many people use Ancestry.com and can find the date, parents, and church where this ceremony took place, going back for centuries.

Now, understand this, if there was a problem with that ceremony, and you have knowledge (key point) - then it is important to get that right. How much more clear can that be? It is not difficult to check and I am sure if you have already left the area, you can get this straightened out at another parish around the world.

If we accept that God chooses to work through man, which I believe, then you have to understand that man can make mistakes. This mistake does not mean that now God is helpless- God is not - but I don't think it would be right for the Bishop to ignore a mistake by a priest acting on his behalf (that is the role of priest).

These things matter and I think the Bishop is showing incredible courage in face of extreme skepticism.

Zobel said:

---

All seems entirely too mechanistic and magical for me. And forgive me but this kind of thinking - we do x and then y is obliged to happen - is awfully pagan in flavor.

---

Despite the fact that Christ himself said to do it…

PabloSerna said:

---

To you and Zobel,

Catholic baptisms are recorded. Who did them and when. Many people use Ancestry.com and can find the date, parents, and church where this ceremony took place, going back for centuries.

Now, understand this, if there was a problem with that ceremony, and you have knowledge (key point) - then it is important to get that right. How much more clear can that be? It is not difficult to check and I am sure if you have already left the area, you can get this straightened out at another parish around the world.

If we accept that God chooses to work through man, which I believe, then you have to understand that man can make mistakes. This mistake does not mean that now God is helpless- God is not - but I don't think it would be right for the Bishop to ignore a mistake by a priest acting on his behalf (that is the role of priest).

These things matter and I think the Bishop is showing incredible courage in face of extreme skepticism.

---

Sometimes Pablo I scratch my head when I read your posts but this is exactly correct.

Again you're missing the point. Not saying it isn't important, or that the mysteries don't have grace, or that it doesn't matter what formula is used, whatever.

I'm saying the stance that because this priest said we vs I, the baptisms are not valid, therefore lack grace, is extreme.

Jesus did not say "if your priest messes up my hands are tied". The whole "God isn't limited but also these baptisms definitely weren't valid" is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I say "we" often when most would assume I'm referring to myself alone. But, I'm not, for I no longer live but Christ in me. The Holt Spirit also dwells in me. So, perhaps this Priest means what the bishops wants him to say with an expansion to also include Christ and the Holy Spirit.
I'm good with it.

PabloSerna said:

---

To you and Zobel,

Catholic baptisms are recorded. Who did them and when. Many people use Ancestry.com and can find the date, parents, and church where this ceremony took place, going back for centuries.

Now, understand this, if there was a problem with that ceremony, and you have knowledge (key point) - then it is important to get that right. How much more clear can that be? It is not difficult to check and I am sure if you have already left the area, you can get this straightened out at another parish around the world.

If we accept that God chooses to work through man, which I believe, then you have to understand that man can make mistakes. This mistake does not mean that now God is helpless- God is not - but I don't think it would be right for the Bishop to ignore a mistake by a priest acting on his behalf (that is the role of priest).

These things matter and I think the Bishop is showing incredible courage in face of extreme skepticism.

---

When my wife and I got married trying to explain to the Catholic wedding register that not only do I not have a baptismal certificate but I couldnt even tell you when I was baptized was quite frustrating for the both of us.

She was annoyed that I wasn't able to "prove" that I was baptized, I was frustrated that anyone would care to "prove" that they were baptized.

The differences in what's importance in high versus low churches never cease to amaze me.

Zobel said:

---

The whole "God isn't limited but also these baptisms definitely weren't valid" is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

---

Respectfully, I don't think so. I don't think it matters what the Church says about this because you will still think that. Ok. Agree to disagree.

Zobel said:

---

Again you're missing the point. Not saying it isn't important, or that the mysteries don't have grace, or that it doesn't matter what formula is used, whatever.

I'm saying the stance that because this priest said we vs I, the baptisms are not valid, therefore lack grace, is extreme.

Jesus did not say "if your priest messes up my hands are tied". The whole "God isn't limited but also these baptisms definitely weren't valid" is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

---

Yep. Sounds exactly like Jesus' criticism of the legalism of the Pharisees.

Zobel said:

---

All seems entirely too mechanistic and magical for me. And forgive me but this kind of thinking - we do x and then y is obliged to happen - is awfully pagan in flavor.

---

You might be orthodox now, but you still got the fire in your baptist roots for calling Catholics pagans.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

All seems entirely too mechanistic and magical for me. And forgive me but this kind of thinking - we do x and then y is obliged to happen - is awfully pagan in flavor.

---

You might be orthodox now, but you still got the fire in your baptist roots for calling Catholics pagans.

---

Sarcasm or stirring the pot?

RCC aren't pagans. Just saying the essence of the sort of transactional technique divine invocation that you can do wrong for different effects is same in pagan.

BluHorseShu said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

All seems entirely too mechanistic and magical for me. And forgive me but this kind of thinking - we do x and then y is obliged to happen - is awfully pagan in flavor.

---

You might be orthodox now, but you still got the fire in your baptist roots for calling Catholics pagans.

---

Sarcasm or stirring the pot?

---

Oh just stirring the pot as this thread winds down. Zobel has shared that he was previously baptist or at least non denominational. Calling Catholics pagans or Christian-pagans was a thing I heard growing up in a baptist/nondenominational bubble. Not from theologians. More of the laity when in line at Jasons Deli.

Zobel has consistently and constantly engaged in fair discussion on here. Just thought I could get a cheap joke in about how loosely and unsoundly Catholics get called pagans by baptists. Yet, at the same time we're facing a very tight argument that actually shows a very pagan approach in the Catholic Church.

Are Catholics pagans? No. Is this discussion exposing transactional, magical incantation views on sacraments? Yes.