Catholic church: Rules are rules, and it doesn’t matter who suffers.

This sort of thing (blind adherence to the words, but not to the meaning or the spirit) goes back 600 years. This is just the latest manifestation of it. I wonder how many formerly baptised catholics will be digusted at the church and leave entirely…

If Pope Francis were a decent man, he would not disallow the legality of the baptisms. Look at how many lives are going to be screwed up on account of this.

No wonder ‘organized’ religion loses people every year.

My mom was one of those casualties.

These are the kinds of strictures that Catholicism is known for. Of course the wording of various prayers and ritual text has changed throughout history; it was once considered illegitimate to perform any of these rituals in a language other than Latin (the Nicene Creed up until recently was translated into English with “we” rather than the more accurate “I” though for difference reasons). It may seem ridiculous, but this kind of adherence to rules and rituals is part of what draws some to Catholicism and turns others away. Not much else I can say about it other than that I hope these families get the situation resolved.

We recently had a Bishop (this cunt here), who claimed at a press conference, that the interviews of church sexual abuse victims by law enforcement are worse than the “essentially harmless abuse cases”.
But sure, a wrong word during baptism, that is a real problem.

Seems to me that, technically, “we” is the right word because you’re talking about 3 entities.

In Germany, if you are a member of a church, you have to pay a church tax to the state, the proceeds of which are then distributed by the government to the various churches.
The state basically acts as a tax collector for the church.
If this happened here, a lot of people could probably demand a refund.

It’s really no one’s business unless they are Catholics and not avowed atheists.

I asked for opinions @zenvelo.

@zenvelo and others:

Non-Catholic here (raised Protestant), wanting to know: How are lives screwed up on account of this?

Well, every baptism he did is now invalidated. Are all those babies and people going to hell now? Going to hell will seriously mess up one’s life!

This will be overturned. The only defense is to overturn Vatican 2, and bring Latin back into the services.

Seems to me that some Catholic marriages won’t be considered valid either, because one or the other partner wasn’t a fully baptised member of the church, and therefore not officially Catholic

@Dutchess_III As you are a militant atheist, please don’t misrepresent other people’s belief systems for your own mocking pleasure.

People who are not fully baptized do not “go to hell.” They go to limbo. And the marriages are not invalidated. It is not a requriemnt that eitehr or both people be baptized Catholics to be married, a marriage by a priest is as valid as one performed by a judge or a Universal Life Minister.

Still asking: what are the consequences of having those baptisms invalidated? What will happen to ruin those people’s lives? This is a sincere question, and the answer is not obvious to this non-Catholic, either in terms of doctrine or in real-world effects.

@Jeruba If you watch the clip and not just the OP, it says that they are reaching out to the people who were baptized and they will be offered a re-baptism.

Since I am not of that faith, I am not going to offer an opinion about how serious an omission this is.

I’m not mocking anyone @zenvelo. I just asked opinions.
I also wouldn’t call myself a “militant” atheist. I have never tried to convert a single person ro atheism. My own husband didn’t realized my beliefs had changed until very recently, and I’ve been atheist since 2007.

I don’t think limbo would be much fun either.

But what if some of those he has baptised have died? How will their families feel?

If the wording is really so important, why did it take so long for this to be noticed? I’m not a Catholic but surely this is a case of “to err is human; to forgive, divine”.

@Dutchess_III The word “limbo” is not mentioned in the Catechism. It is a traditional belief about what happens to the unbaptized, but there is no official Church doctrine on the afterlife of unbaptized infants and many Catholic theologians reject the idea that unbaptized infants are condemned to eternal limbo and barred from heaven. But if that is a possibility, then obviously there’s a strong motive for a baptism to be done correctly (if an incorrect one can have eternal negative consequences).

@janbb, I did. It explains what the church authorities think is wrong with the “we.” It doesn’t tell me what, exactly, is wrong with having an invalid baptism.

I should have directed my earlier question to @elbanditoroso because of this sentence:
> Look at how many lives are going to be screwed up on account of this.
Screwed up how?

@Dutchess_III, I don’t think your point about number holds water (holy or other). The doctrine of three-in-one doesn’t appear to extend to a person [believed to be] acting in the name of Jesus Christ; it isn’t four in one.

Well isn’t the priest acting as stand in for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when he does a baptism?

Yes, but the trinity is still regarded and referred to as one. It seems that the priest was saying “we” more in the sense of the community and the church, instead of thinking of it as Christ through him.

Yes, I think so, @Dutchess_III, but the doctrine of the Trinity says three in one. Does Jesus in the Gospels ever refer to himself as “we”? I don’t think so, but I haven’t checked.

Anyway, the point seems to be that the priest and the community don’t have the power to baptize. It’s an act of God. The priest is empowered to perform it, but he is not the source of the power, nor is the community. I think that’s the issue here.

I don’t think it was a slip of the tongue, though, a simple error. My guess is that the priest was speaking intentionally. Maybe he even expected to face this challenge sooner or later.

Why would he do that @Jeruba? What wotbe his point?

I wouldn’t sweat it. If there was a “God,” he’d understand what was meant.

@chyna, I know nothing about this man and can’t speculate on his motives. But I’ve read enough mystery stories and strange sagas to guess at a few possibilities, which just means speculating and treating the speculations as equal until some can be eliminated. I have no expertise or experience in this area.

1. What if he truly believed that the authority does come from such as he and the community he serves, rather than from above, and he has just quietly been taking his stand on the question?

2. What if he wanted to call attention to the doctrinal issue at work here, namely, whose authority, the One or the Three, and force the ecclesiastical body to weigh the question?

3. What if he has come to believe that there is no different future life for those who are baptized using the prescribed wording and those baptized using a variant, because the intent is all, and he wanted (how? I don’t know) to be able to prove it?

4. What if he is a heretic and wanted to undermine the system?

5. What if he studied it deeply and came to believe that the received tradition was wrong and his version is more faithful to some original intent?

 
Meanwhile, I still want to know what are the actual consequences of having your baptism retracted. Also I don’t see mention of whether he did all his baptisms this way over the years or he did it just this once and that somehow tainted and invalidated all the ones he had ever done. Just this once, of course, argues for an unintentional lapse.

@Jeruba and others Here’s an article from NPR that explains the situation and the consequences of the misused word and what is being done to remedy the situation:

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080829813/priest-resigns-baptisms?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR0nbH8sXm_pBAVG45QkIZ41pk7XxfzsdN2tiSC3EkLKyU8M4n-idyTEiJs

It’s the risk you take with organized religions. They have absolute authority on spiritual matters if that’s what you want to sign up for.

@Jeruba It does raise a number of questions worthy of Talmudic debate. If one is baptized when older, one may undergo many initial sacraments in one long ceremony. When my ex was baptized at age 32, she had her baptism, first communion and her confirmation all in the same night.

One is supposed to be beptized before partaking in the other sacraments, but in the case of an invalid baptism, that would be disrupted, but it does not invalidate the sacredness of the other sacraments.

Catholic teaching has long held the notion of “baptism by desire”, in which under dire circumstances, a lay person may baptize someone and it is as if performed by a priest. It doesn’t even require holy water.

Since Baptism is also know as “The Rite of Christian Initiation” (where you join the club). the use of “we” as welcoming one into the fold may be found to be appropriate.

Also, all practicing Catholics renew ther baptismal vows every Easter, and it is consecrated with Holy Water, a practice that continues every Sunday beween Easter and Pentecost.

But it was found to not be appropriate and he had to resign @ zenvelo.

I would think that in Gods eyes they were Baptised and no need for a paper to confirm it, at least not in Heaven.

Confirmation is actually “confirmation of baptism” Are their confirmations, and thereby church memberships (including voting rights), in question?

What @kruger_d?

They probably go to Purgatory according to old school beliefs. Only speculating here because it has been a long time for me. But Purgatory is, I was taught, an in between, niether hell nor heaven. As said I’m only speculating, going on what I was told in Parochial School a hundred years ago. ; ) I was there when Mass was still sad in Latin and num still wore the entire habit. But these days I am apathetic agnostic. I don’t really know and I don’t really care.

I meant to type “affirmation of baptism”. Basically confirmation is a young person’s formal training and commitment to the tenets of the church. Their baptism is affirmed through confirmation. My understanding comes from Lutheranism, but I think Catholic is similar.