This is from Crux and you can read it there but oddly enough, I had an RCIA class on the Sacrament of Baptism this past Thursday and spoke about invalid baptisms and a priest who discovered he had been invalidly baptized and had to have all his sacraments again for the first time including ordination:
PRIEST RESIGNS AS PASTOR OVER INVALID BAPTISMS
The use of the improper form led Father Arango to resign as pastor of St. Gregory Parish in Phoenix. Bishop Olmsted said Father Arango remains a priest in good standing in the diocese and that he would be helping the diocese identify and contact people whose baptisms are invalid.
Father Arango became pastor of St. Gregory Church in April 2017 after leaving the Congregation of Jesus and Mary, commonly referred to as the Eudists. Prior to his appointment as pastor, he was parish administrator at the church beginning in July 2015.
Diocesan officials did not disclose how many people are affected by the discovery.
Bishop Olmsted wrote that church officials are working to identify as many as people as possible to inform them how to receive a valid baptism.
MY COMMENTS: I knew a priest in the very early 80’s who used the correct formula for baptism, but after he baptized an infant, he would ask all present to come forward and place the Holy Water on the child’s head too so that the communal aspect of “we” would be symbolized! Yes, I saw that!
Of course, we have no idea how many priests with a so-called post Vatican II baptism had a priest or deacon use the invalid words of “We baptize you…” at their baptism. There’s no way to really know unless the baptism was filmed or their is an audio of it. And what about all those progressive, heterodox priests (and in an emergency, lay people, like nuns) used the common formula “In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”?
And what about all those priests who change the words of the prayers of Mass, thinking, like those deacons and priests who changed the words of baptism, that their way was better and why? Simply because they think the sacraments are all about them—narcissism on steroids.
And don’t get me started about the “matter” used for the Mass in my seminary in the late 1970’s. I don’t think I ever attended a Mass there where homemade bread wasn’t used which included in its recipe honey, yeast, salt and other seasonings, like ginger or cinnamon. And this kind of bread was used in the Mass in which I and about 10 others were ordained deacons.
What a mess and more of messes are being made today as we return to the 1960’s and 70’s in a kind of warped time, aka, time warp.
17 comments:
You spoke about invalid baptisms to your RCIA class? Really?
Yes, really and you haven't? Not necessarily shocking though. Of course, it was in the context of emergency baptisms and what they as lay people need to do with water poured over the head of the person and the correct words, I baptize you... not some other words like I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Thus it was a great opportunity to teach those being taught about what happens when Sacraments are invalidly celebrated.
But also with their own Protestant baptism, were the correct words used, if not or if some doubt, conditional baptism at the Easter Vigil would be necessary.
So, dear Father, why would you keep this away from Catechumens and candidates? Clericalism or not to bring up anything controversial in some of your pastoral liturgical decisions?
Dear Fr. ALLAN McDonald: Let us know whan you determine with moral certitude that any of the Protestant baptism celebrated for your RCIA crowd were not valid.
Please list the criteria by which you judge these baptisms and the incontrovertible evidence that you use to formulate your conclusions.
Celebrating conditional baptisms when there is nothing more than an ill-founded suspicion that there might have been, could have been, may have been and invalid baptism is an abuse and a cause for scandal.
Thank you for asking. Maybe you missed that class in your RCIA training.
1. If you can obtain a baptismal certificate, and can determine in that denomination, that the baptism was administered not by sprinkling, but rather by pouring water or immersion, and the words "I baptize you in the Name of the F and of the S and of the HS, there is no need for a conditional baptism.
2. If there is no documented proof of a baptism, either by certificate or the testimony of someone at the baptism, conditional baptism is used.
3. If the denomination in question used the words, I baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ, then a valid baptism is administered at the Easter Vigil.
4. If the "elect" can provided documentation either of a witness or audio or video recording that the minister used "We baptize you..." then a valid baptism must be conferred.
In our RCIA class we have several in the category above as well as two Mormons.
The morons and the one baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ will receive valid baptism at the Easter Vigil, the others who can't provide documentation or a witness to their baptism will be conditionally baptized at the Easter Vigil.
I hope this teaching the ignorant will help you.
And what happens to the people who through no fault of their own think they were validly baptized? Does hell await, What if you were married by a priest who was not validly baptized? Is you marriage invalid through no fault of your own, blissful damnation?
Not trying to be cheeky, just with so much invalidity going on in the church from heretic priests, bishops and in my opinion the pope, if they lead souls astray, who suffers damnation. FR Fleiger or the parishioners or the bishop who supports his heresy
"1. If you can obtain a baptismal certificate, and can determine in that denomination, that the baptism was administered not by sprinkling, but rather by pouring water or immersion, and the words "I baptize you in the Name of the F and of the S and of the HS, there is no need for a conditional baptism."
Indeed. Now, you can stop your fear-mongering and doubt-casting and get back to teaching the faith, not your own suspicions and misgivings.
But, that will not be enough for you. They will say, "I don't remember the words used," and you will shout, "CONDITIONAL BAPTISM!"
They will say, "I'm not sure what he said," and you will shout, "CONDITIONAL BAPTISM!' etc.
So, baptize conditionally to your doubting heart's content.
E, the invalidly baptized person is not in jeopardy of hell because of the Church's teaching on Baptism of desire and striving to live a good Catholic life, by knowing, loving and serving Jesus Christ in the life. The one who intentionally used words that mock baptism and made it invalid is the culprit here.
In the Latin Rite, it is not necessary for a priest or anyone to preside over the ceremony as what is needed are two validly baptized people to constitute the sacrament who come together in body and soul to live as husband and wife and procreate and create a Christian family and technically the Church can acknowledge common law marriage as a sacrament.
Of course if they are invalidly baptized, the sacramental character of their bond is lacking through no fault of their own, but their salvation is not called into question, again through the "desire" theology of the Church.
FrMJK, exactly and now you are coming to your senses and distancing yourself from a false tea and crumpets ecumenism. I speak here about not providing adequate proof of a valid baptism and you and all sensible priests and deacons shouting: "CONDITIONAL BAPTISM!" Thanks for becoming sensible.
Fr K should start his own blog. Of course that would require him to assume multiple identities again to give the appearance of having a following
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - So now you have planted in their minds the idea that, "Maybe this priest's baptism wasn't valid." Imagine, that thought can travel with the wherever they go for mass, confession, anointing, etc.
Congratulations.
You can offer anyone conditional baptism that suffers the kind of pathological ocd you speak of. That’ll cure them.
We don't treat mental illness with sacraments.
Oh yes we do!
SO, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, someone comes in with cardiomyopathy, exzema, and/or acne, do you prescribe the eucharist, Confession, or Marriage?
You see, while God can heal any illness at will, with or without presbyteral intervention, we don't use sacraments as a treatment for illness.
incredible! yes we do and most people do and yes all of the above.
Since, as you regularly admit, your seminary formation was so thoroughly lacking, it is not surprising that your understanding of the purpose of the sacraments is as weak as it is.
No, we do not use the sacraments for treatment of illness or disease. The purpose of the sacraments: "The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the body of Christ, and finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.’ They do indeed impart grace, but, in addition, the very act of celebrating them disposes the faithful most effectively to receive this grace in a fruitful manner, to worship God duly, and to practice charity.”
So, if you can find the text in the Church's teaching that tells us sacraments are for treating disease, please do.
Fr K,
Explain to us how abortion is healthcare and why you vote for a party which demands funding for abortion during a pandemic and won’t promote a person for the presidency or other high office unless they sell their soul to Planned Parenthood? Inquiring minds want to know.
Post a Comment