"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

MT 16:19

+++

It is frustrating for some to understand that God chooses to use our fellow man, in this case a Bishop, as part (not exclusive) of his plan for our salvation. Maybe it is easier for cradle Catholics to understand the ministerial role clergy have in our journey. I think some of this criticism is a bit overblown.

There's a failure to communicate here, somehow.

No one misunderstands that God chooses to work through men, or that the Holy Mysteries are means of receiving grace, or whatever else.

The tension is very clearly between two ideas:

- We say that we can't limit God's grace
- We say that because of this minister's error these baptisms definitely weren't valid

Simply on the face of it these two things are contradictory.

The underlying question is - what makes a sacrament or mystery efficacious? The technique, or words? Or the action of God? Who is baptizing, the minister or Christ Himself? Can the minister's error prevent Christ from the circumcision of the heart?

I see. I do know that both are important, are you implying that is not the case?

Not sure how you could get that both are not important from what I wrote. Of course they are.

I'd just settle for people saying the baptisms "may not be" valid instead of saying they definitely aren't. I'd also be just fine with the bishop receiving them by economy.

Ok. Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head that people have an issue with the fact that this Bishop has discovered an error and is trying to fix it. It could be presumptuous to assume that it doesn't really matter and that could lead to a whole other question of what purpose a ministerial priesthood serves.

Like I said, he has narrowed the error down to this one priest and wants to fix it. I applaud him for his attention to detail. From the outside looking in- I get that the optics don't look good. Oh well.

PabloSerna said:

---

Ok. Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head that people have an issue with the fact that this Bishop has discovered an error and is trying to fix it. It could be presumptuous to assume that it doesn't really matter and that could lead to a whole other question of what purpose a ministerial priesthood serves.

Like I said, he has narrowed the error down to this one priest and wants to fix it. I applaud him for his attention to detail. From the outside looking in- I get that the optics don't look good. Oh well.

---

I don't have a problem with a bishop acknowledging and correcting an error. One of my problems is that they choose this minor thing to get all letigious and strict about. The bishop could just as easily acknowledged the mistake, corrected and punished the priest, offered a new baptism to anyone who wanted, but assured everyone that the grace and power of Christ would have overcome any mistake made by humans. By doing the action he chose it makes it seem like the words said are more powerful than Christ.

At work I have to have a couple different certifications to perform the job. They require quarterly reading and yearly proficiency. If I read section A instead of section B of the training manual that's a big deal. They should pull my cert, not let me perform the job and perform a delta certification. If I read something that had a typo they'd correct the mistake and it would be correct next year, at most write a waiver for certification paperwork. It seems like the church is correcting a typo with a delta cert instead of a waiver.

It's a low blow when it comes to Catholics, but you brought it up earlier when you shared your own baptism. I think it would be more appropriate for the baptisms performed by a child rapist to be invalid instead of one performed by a guy who used third person instead of first.

Donatism

The Church already faced a larger issue with clergy that, out of fear for their lives, renounced Jesus. Afterwards they continued in ministry. Many thought that their sin of betraying Christ invalidated their ministerial works. It would be Saint Augustine who would basically say that God is not bound by the sinfulness or sinlessness of the minister of the sacrament.

That is why I brought up Fr. Clarke. I remember him fondly. He was actually an exorcist from what I remember. It is an extreme tragedy and I said a prayer for his soul and the victims when I found out. I lived in the very government housing project next to Christ the King (La Armada). It is still there. He visited my mom and other parishioners as was the custom to invite the priest for dinner from time to time.

Zobel and others have pointed out that it seems contradictory to say on the one hand, that God is not bound by the sacrament (words in this case) but that if you were baptized by Fr. Andres, you need to come back in to have this sacrament validated. This is where, he is the Bishop of that flock and he is taking action. We can wonder why, but in the end, that is the Bishop of those people.

Pope Francis made a similar statement regarding a Bishop's prerogative to deny communion to certain Catholic politicians. This is no different. Weird I guess if you are not Catholic. Surprising I guess if you are that a Bishop is essentially an Apostle and that my friends carries a lot of weight. I would think Bishops in other denominations have a similar authority, I could be wrong?

+

Quad Dog said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Ok. Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head that people have an issue with the fact that this Bishop has discovered an error and is trying to fix it. It could be presumptuous to assume that it doesn't really matter and that could lead to a whole other question of what purpose a ministerial priesthood serves.

Like I said, he has narrowed the error down to this one priest and wants to fix it. I applaud him for his attention to detail. From the outside looking in- I get that the optics don't look good. Oh well.

---

I don't have a problem with a bishop acknowledging and correcting an error. One of my problems is that they choose this minor thing to get all letigious and strict about. The bishop could just as easily acknowledged the mistake, corrected and punished the priest, offered a new baptism to anyone who wanted, but assured everyone that the grace and power of Christ would have overcome any mistake made by humans. By doing the action he chose it makes it seem like the words said are more powerful than Christ.

---

I can understand how it might seem that way, but when the words are those of Jesus and the church he established and empowered determines that his words must be followed or the sacrament is invalid then so be it. Unless you believe that the Catholic Church is that church and has that authority then I understand why you disagree and that's fine.

But I would ask "What degree of variance from the prescribed words is acceptable?" More to the point, why have any care or concern about what words are used? Does form matter at all for sacraments" If God's grace is always and everywhere more than sufficient to overcome a deficiency in form and or matter of a sacrament then why even bother with sacraments at all?" You may not believe what Catholics believe about sacraments, and that's fine, but as a Catholic I do believe what the Church teaches and always has taught for about 2,000 years about the sacraments. They are signs given to us by Christ himself that effect what they signify. Why would Jesus bother if he can just fill in gaps with his grace if the sacrament is flubbed (which of course he could, and he knew he could when he gave us the sacraments)? Maybe it's because the sacraments are a way for us to have confidence in God's grace and mercy and tangibly receive that after Jesus ascended?

Quote:

---

It's a low blow when it comes to Catholics, but you brought it up earlier when you shared your own baptism. I think it would be more appropriate for the baptisms performed by a child rapist to be invalid instead of one performed by a guy who used third person instead of first.

---

The Church teaches that it is God who is baptizing in baptism, absolving in confession, consecrating the bread and wine in the Eucharist, blessing the marital bond in marriage, confirming in Confirmation, ordaining in Holy Orders and healing in the anointing of the sick. In urgent circumstances, anyone who has the proper intention and uses the correct formula can baptize, although it is normally a deacon or priest. Only a priest can offer Christ's absolution and consecrate the bread and wine, and he does so in persona Christi. Same for Confirmation and holy orders and anointing. Deacons and priests are the only ones who can officiate a sacramental marriage.

To your point, a child rapist priest can consecrate the bread and wine or absolve a penitent because it is not the priest who is consecrating or absolving. It is Christ working through the ministry of the Church he established, which is also his mystical body. It is all Jesus, the same God-man who instituted the sacraments is also working through them and is also perfectly capable of working outside them, a fact that he knew when he instituted them, and yet he still instituted them. He gifted them to us as obvious, objective means of receiving his grace. So, the Church takes that quite literally and quite seriously.

His words must be followed or else? The orthodox don't use the I formula. Here you declare all other baptisms invalid if the celebrant doesn't say "I"? Where do you get that these are His words?

It's always Him doing it unless the priest says it wrong. Then He, apparently, is blocked.

My grammar is generally not great, maybe that's been blocking Christ from acting in my life all these years. I didn't know using third person could block his power, good to know. That might come in handy some day.

Just the other day, I saw a botched exorcism. Priest said, 'The power of Christ compels us.' The exorcism didn't work. Girl's gonna have to live with a nasty crick in her neck.

Zobel said:

---

His words must be followed or else? The orthodox don't use the I formula. Here you declare all other baptisms invalid if the celebrant doesn't say "I"? Where do you get that these are His words?

It's always Him doing it unless the priest says it wrong. Then He, apparently, is blocked.

---

I respect your intellect and faith so much that I just don't want this to come across as unkind. I'm starting I am a much worse writer than I thought, which is entirely probable. So please don't take this as me being unkind. But, come on Z! HE gave us the words and HE created and empowered HIS church to administer HIS sacraments and knew priests would get those words wrong at some point. Why would he bother if it didn't matter? My response, to that question, which I acknowledge may not be acceptable for you is: HIS Church has declared that the words matter. I understand you might not agree with the authority the Church claims but it seems like that's a different argument than the one you are making.

You certainly don't need me to advise you on authority. The opposite is probably more accurate.

But if you want to contend that the Church's position is irrational or "semi-pagan" because the Church has no authority to make such declarations that's fine. Of course I disagree and would argue it does. But that is a legitimate point to argue. Otherwise, I don't understand your point and would rather just move on because I don't think it's productive. Peace.

Apologies in advance if I have mischaracterized anything you have said.

It really does seem like there's some kind of communication disconnect. I don't dispute that the words matter. The question is degree and the affirmation that "I" vs "we" prevents grace. It's not a question of authority.

And again…both have said He gave us the words. Where does this come from?

So, how much money is in it for the church?

Zobel said:

---

It really does seem like there's some kind of communication disconnect. I don't dispute that the words matter. The question is degree and the affirmation that "I" vs "we" prevents grace. It's not a question of authority.

And again…both have said He gave us the words. Where does this come from?

---

From Bishop Olmsted...

Specifically, it was reported to me that Fr. Andres used the formula, "WE baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The key phrase in question is the use of "We baptize" in place of "I baptize." The issue with using "We" is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes.

I think the Bishop is correct if Fr. Andres misunderstood who was presiding. I can see where, Fr. Andres, is thinking as we all are - that "we" can do this on Christ's behalf - when in fact it is Christ alone who can do this only. That is not a minor point of order.

As I read further into this, it is clear that this is THE point of distinction - that Fr. Andres was placing the emphasis on the family and friends attending - that they were doing this and not Jesus. So it would seem that this needs to be corrected. Intent in this case is everything.

PabloSerna said:

---

Zobel said:

---

It really does seem like there's some kind of communication disconnect. I don't dispute that the words matter. The question is degree and the affirmation that "I" vs "we" prevents grace. It's not a question of authority.

And again…both have said He gave us the words. Where does this come from?

---

From Bishop Olmsted...

Specifically, it was reported to me that Fr. Andres used the formula, "WE baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The key phrase in question is the use of "We baptize" in place of "I baptize." The issue with using "We" is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes.

I think the Bishop is correct if Fr. Andres misunderstood who was presiding. I can see where, Fr. Andres, is thinking as we all are - that "we" can do this on Christ's behalf - when in fact it is Christ alone who can do this only. That is not a minor point of order.

As I read further into this, it is clear that this is THE point of distinction - that Fr. Andres was placing the emphasis on the family and friends attending - that they were doing this and not Jesus. So it would seem that this needs to be corrected. Intent in this case is everything.

---

Is Christ not a part of that community, and therefore would be excluded in the "we"?

Perhaps it was the royal, ecclesiastical "we" ...

Did "we" die on the cross?

Gump 02 said:

---

So, how much money is in it for the church?

---

Each of my kids' baptisms cost around eleventy billion francs. And that was with the coupons from the hospital. More recently, I have gotten a small price break due to my status as a frequent baptizer. All this to say that it's gonna rain dollar bills. I suspect we're gonna build some more banal, iconoclastic, Bauhaus bunker churches.

747Ag said:

---

Gump 02 said:

---

So, how much money is in it for the church?

---

Each of my kids' baptisms cost around eleventy billion francs. And that was with the coupons from the hospital. More recently, I have gotten a small price break due to my status as a frequent baptizer. All this to say that it's gonna rain dollar bills. I suspect we're gonna build some more banal, iconoclastic, Bauhaus bunker churches.

---

There is definitely money in it for the church, however, I doubt that was even on the radar for the discussion.

It is traditional to give a donation at the baptism.

I guarantee that there will be people who feel obligate to donate again or to simple donate more because they are in a better spot at this baptism.

It is traditional to give a donation the the celebrant, not the Church itself. No one is required to give anything to receive any Sacrament.

PabloSerna said:

---

Did "we" die on the cross?

---

I don't know who this Pablo character is but he is bringing some truth to this thread.

I mean, the priest who says "I" didn't die on the cross either.

What was this priest's intent? Jesus or himself?

Clearly 'we' intends the people present would you not agree? Therein lies the problem.


ETA: Aquinas and Augustine agree:
"As Augustine says in his Commentary on John's Gospel, the word is operative in the sacraments 'not because it is spoken', that is, not according to the exterior sound of the voice, but 'because it is believed', according to the meaning of the words which is held by faith" (Summa theologiae, III, q. 60, a. 7, ad 1).

Not since the debate over homoousios and homoiousios has the elimination of one "I/i" made such an apparent difference in the life of the Church!

The Council of Nicea should have been satisfied with that "I/i" and not worried about it so much. Think of all the poor Arians that were treated unfairly because of one silly "I/i"! I mean they were all condemned to heresy over one stupid vowel? Come on! The Nicean fathers should have been more generous and not so "pagan" and "formulaic."

We believe in a God of great mercy so surely God's gracious "auto-correct" would have fixed it? Did it really matter if the second person of the Trinity was "of similar substance" or of the "same substance" as the first person of the Trinity? Seems very pharisaical to insist on one silly "I/i". Get a life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) goes on for 8 articles on the sacraments and words, intent, etc... It is something the ancient and near ancient church has taken very seriously. It boils down to intent and the words matter. He says clearly if there is some mispronunciation, but the intent remains - the sacrament is valid. If you have the time... LINK

For me, it goes back to apostolic authority. It is real or it is quasi-real. This Bishop felt compelled to correct what he knew to be an error on behalf of one of his priest. I am sure once he understood that the priest had a nice intention (inclusive, group prayer) - but the wrong understanding of who is actually conferring the sacrament, he had a choice; sweep it under the rug or fix it.

Interesting take from an actual canonical lawyer.

Wait, that title is serious?

That's the most pharisaical title I've ever heard.

What the World Over?
It's a news show about a global religion. Seems appropriate.

PabloSerna said:

---

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) goes on for 8 articles on the sacraments and words, intent, etc... It is something the ancient and near ancient church has taken very seriously. It boils down to intent and the words matter. He says clearly if there is some mispronunciation, but the intent remains - the sacrament is valid. If you have the time... LINK

For me, it goes back to apostolic authority. It is real or it is quasi-real. This Bishop felt compelled to correct what he knew to be an error on behalf of one of his priest. I am sure once he understood that the priest had a nice intention (inclusive, group prayer) - but the wrong understanding of who is actually conferring the sacrament, he had a choice; sweep it under the rug or fix it.

---

Spot on!

For reasons already explained, this is a bad argument. It doesnt address the issue being raised.

If Christ is conferring the sacrament why does it matter what the priests intent is?

How many poor intents masked by correct words have resulted in invalid sacraments?

I believe in apostolic authority. The bishop should correct the error and receive the people in by economy, or rebaptism at their discretion. There is no need, none, to affirm that their baptisms were without grace. None.

Job title.

There's canonical…lawyers?

X

PabloSerna said:

---

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) goes on for 8 articles on the sacraments and words, intent, etc... It is something the ancient and near ancient church has taken very seriously. It boils down to intent and the words matter. He says clearly if there is some mispronunciation, but the intent remains - the sacrament is valid. If you have the time... LINK

For me, it goes back to apostolic authority. It is real or it is quasi-real. This Bishop felt compelled to correct what he knew to be an error on behalf of one of his priest. I am sure once he understood that the priest had a nice intention (inclusive, group prayer) - but the wrong understanding of who is actually conferring the sacrament, he had a choice; sweep it under the rug or fix it.

---

From the RCC:

"The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation."[url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3L.HTM#$1IT][/url]

This is what I find so…odd. The universe for those who can baptize is…inclusive. Granted, there is the idea of "necessity". In this case, the re-baptizing of tens of thousands of people, many of whom have lived their whole lives taking their rightful membership in the Church very, very seriously, seems the definition of "necessity", if not charity.