So a deacon, and he isn't the only one, but thanks be to God, these improvising priests and deacons are in the minority, baptized a baby invaidly by using "We baptize you..." And that poor baby, invalidly baptized, goes on to be ordained a priest, but invalidly since you have to be validly baptized to receive subsequent sacraments!!
Of course his Catholic baptismal certificate presumed the deacon did a valid baptism. Only by way of a video of his baptism, did he realize, after the CDF's ruling, that he wasn't validly baptized. Thankfully he hasn't been ordained that long and it shouldn't be too difficult to get word out that he was not validly ordained when he celebrated Mass and Confessions. However, these two are of lesser concern, since Catholics go to other priests for additional Masses and Confessions. But Confirmations and Anointing of the sick are more of a concern, especially Confirmation. I presume his baptisms and marriages while perhaps illicit due to no fault of the priest himself, are still considered valid.
8 comments:
Funny you should bring that up. There is a fellow on our men’s prayer group that is a convert and has been concerned about that to the extent that he has requested a conditional baptism. This was before this particular event but it does show your concerns are well founded.
"I recommend now, that all Protestant be conditional baptized prior to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Church."
Bad idea. Here's why. Your recommendation is based on an assumption for which you have no evidence.
If we're going to doubt the validity of Protestant baptisms, should we not also doubt the validity of Catholic Baptisms? Will you conditionally Baptize all the kids in your First Communion class because they MIGHT not have been validly baptized? Your Confirmation class? The couples you are preparing for Marriage?
Also, if we assume the invalidity or question the validity of a Protestant Baptism, why would we not do the same with a Protestant marriage? That would save an awful lot of time and make lengthy and, often, unpleasant formal annulment cases unnecessary.
The assumption that you may be the only one, or one of the few at least, who does things properly is a little self-aggrandizing.
On Fr. Pa lo's. Blog, someone suggested precisely that, that bishops should quietly re-baptize conditionally, all candidates for the priesthood. It is because of the improvisation so many priests do during the liturgy today. Who knows who has been validly.baptized unless there is video evidence. I guess this is another Vatican II debacle or its spirit, we did not maintain Latin and allow some vernacular. Where validity is necessary in terms of words, I recommend what Vatican II taught but I am more explicit. Maintain Latin for what is required for validity of the Sacrament. That isn't too hard to do and the vernacular would stilll be the majority of the liturgy.
I am in favor of the marriages of Protestants since in practice, both individually and institutionally they do not believe a marriage is indissoluble. A quick “annulment “ for RCIA purposed would be in order.
Believe it or not, most Protestant sects don't mess around with baptism. Only the most liberal sects. I heard thousands of baptisms in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches and never heard anyone innovate.
"The assumption that you may be the only one, or one of the few at least, who does things properly is a little self-aggrandizing."
LOL!!! This from a man will zero self-awareness who suffers from TDS!
"I recommend now, that all Protestant be conditional baptized prior to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Church."
Agree. Aside from the Orthodox, I have never been in favor of accepting the validity of "sacraments" as administered by protestant ministers. It's a shame that Catholics have to have the same concern within our own Church. But, no point complaining about it, no one will likely do anything about it.
"Maintain Latin for what is required for validity of the Sacrament." Agree. Perhaps the most fail-safe way to ensure validity.
The reason for the conditional baptism is to ensure the person requesting to become Catholic is validly baptized, not to determine if the paster did it right. We know the Catholic deacon or priest is required to do it right and the person comes certified as such until we are shown otherwise. Do we recognize the same requirement of a Protestant sect? It seems prudent to conditionally baptize if we can’t show for certain the Protestant has done it right. There may be reasons to do the same for certain Catholic dioceses for baptisms from certain eras.
Post a Comment