Merged Catholic Priest uses wrong word in baptism invalidates decades of baptisms

[Reformed Offlian]

The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix ultimately made the call to expose the minister's error and make it public.

“It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments,” said the diocese.

“Therefore, it is Christ who baptizes. If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized.”


So I guess all those kids are going to hell, right?
the ludicrousness of dogmatic religion

If the priest isn't the one doing the actual heavy lifting, why does it matter what words he used? Does Christ have a snit and not baptize someone if He's not given proper credit? And even if so, how does the Church know that this is what He always does?

 

[Olmstead]

Is there a religious version of hypochondria where believers obsessively think about eternal damnation due to seemingly insignificant things?

 

[Meadmaker]

Is there a religious version of hypochondria where believers obsessively think about eternal damnation due to seemingly insignificant things?

Yes.

It's called "Catholicism".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is there a religious version of hypochondria where believers obsessively think about eternal damnation due to seemingly insignificant things?

"Religion."

 

[arthwollipot]

t’other way around he said “We” instead of “I”. And that makes all the difference…..

In Roman Catholic dogma it does make a lot of difference, apparently.

 

[LongFuzzy]

I'm trying to imagine a Baptism emergency....

Well you'll Ned need a kit.
https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Emergency_Baptism_Kit

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Limbo has been abolished. Also there is the doctrine of 'Baptism of Desire'.

Not at the time of the event I referred to… At least the priest didn’t think so…

If it has, does that mean the infallible god got it wrong and changed his mind or are the church owning it as a mistake in interpretation?

 

[arthwollipot]

t’other way around he said “We” instead of “I”. And that makes all the difference…..

I'll go back to this now that I'm on a proper keyboard.

As I understand it, the difference is that in Catholic dogma (and just to be clear, I'm using "Catholic" as shorthand so that I don't need to type "Roman Catholic" every time, and please assume that every time I use the word "Catholic" the "Roman" is implied) only Jesus can baptise someone. The priest is acting as a standin for Jesus, as he always does. So the singular is correct, and using the plural in its place is practically blasphemous since it is implying that someone other than Jesus is capable of performing the baptism.

Again, this is only Catholic doctrine, where clergy stand in as proxies for the divine, and all commune with the divine has to be channelled through them. This isn't the case in most Protestant denoms as far as I know. In Protestantism, individuals have a direct line to God and while pastors lead services and deliver sermons, they are not divinely ordained to act as proxy for the divine.

 

[catsmate]

I'll go back to this now that I'm on a proper keyboard.

As I understand it, the difference is that in Catholic dogma (and just to be clear, I'm using "Catholic" as shorthand so that I don't need to type "Roman Catholic" every time, and please assume that every time I use the word "Catholic" the "Roman" is implied) only Jesus can baptise someone. The priest is acting as a standin for Jesus, as he always does. So the singular is correct, and using the plural in its place is practically blasphemous since it is implying that someone other than Jesus is capable of performing the baptism.

Again, this is only Catholic doctrine, where clergy stand in as proxies for the divine, and all commune with the divine has to be channelled through them. This isn't the case in most Protestant denoms as far as I know. In Protestantism, individuals have a direct line to God and while pastors lead services and deliver sermons, they are not divinely ordained to act as proxy for the divine.

In fact baptism is,in RCC doctrine, the only sacrament performable by a lay-person.

 

[arthwollipot]

In fact baptism is,in RCC doctrine, the only sacrament performable by a lay-person.

Under certain very specific circumstances, yes. Essentially what the doctrine says is that in an emergency (a newborn about to die unbaptised, for example) a lay person can act as proxy for the priest, who acts as proxy for Jesus. A proxy proxy, if you will. But again, and this is important, only under certain very specific circumstances. Most of the time, the laity is not empowered to perform baptism.

 

[catsmate]

Under certain very specific circumstances, yes. Essentially what the doctrine says is that in an emergency (a newborn about to die unbaptised, for example) a lay person can act as proxy for the priest, who acts as proxy for Jesus. A proxy proxy, if you will. But again, and this is important, only under certain very specific circumstances. Most of the time, the laity is not empowered to perform baptism.

Exactly.

 

[dellarte]

Is there a religious version of hypochondria where believers obsessively think about eternal damnation due to seemingly insignificant things?

Psst. Hey. Yeah, you man. I got some indulgences off of eBay the other day. Official RC, man. Top quality. Papal seal 'n all. The full bizz. Wanna buy some?

 

[dellarte]

In Protestantism, individuals have a direct line to God and while pastors lead services and deliver sermons, they are not divinely ordained to act as proxy for the divine.

Did Luther Add "Alone" To Romans 3:28?

Cut out the excess fat. Through faith, allein. Romans 3:28.

 

[zooterkin]

The priest has apparently been doing this since 1995, in both English and Spanish, so there's a good chance that at least one of the people not properly baptised has gone on to take holy orders, and every act that he's performed as a priest has not been valid either, according to the rules of the RCC.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The priest has apparently been doing this since 1995, in both English and Spanish, so there's a good chance that at least one of the people not properly baptised has gone on to take holy orders, and every act that he's performed as a priest has not been valid either, according to the rules of the RCC.

Otherwise known as the asymbolic succession.

Dave

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe the diocese can set up some Ninja Warrior style obstacle course where the people effected can be baptized, receive first communion, and be confirmed all in one go.

 

[Olmstead]

Yes.

It's called "Catholicism".

That's just a boring old regular illness. Just like I can push the thought that I could have a stroke at any moment to the back of my head, most religious people seem to do that with their immortal soul. All of them are at the whims of a capricious God. They should be terrified, and yet they seem convinced that God will sort it out in their favour somehow.

 

[catsmate]

The priest has apparently been doing this since 1995, in both English and Spanish, so there's a good chance that at least one of the people not properly baptised has gone on to take holy orders, and every act that he's performed as a priest has not been valid either, according to the rules of the RCC.

Indeed, something similar happened in one of de Rosa's Bless Me Father books.

 

[sackett]

Fighting to the last iota! It's that old time religion, and it's good enough for

Um. Well,

 

[arthwollipot]

Psst. Hey. Yeah, you man. I got some indulgences off of eBay the other day. Official RC, man. Top quality. Papal seal 'n all. The full bizz. Wanna buy some?

Oh man. I'm pretty sure that with some skillz with NFTs I could make a killing selling indulgences on the dark web.