Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
The Roman Catholic Church has declared thousands of baptisms performed by a priest to be invalid, as the term "we baptize" was used instead of "I baptize".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Very insightful.Oh well.
For people whose souls are in peril every day, who have no gospel, who prostrate themselves before images, who blaspheme Christ in their Mass, and who test the patience of the Lord with their abominable false worship, that some priest forgot to use the right pronoun in some baptisms is the very least of their worries.Very insightful.
"The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.
"Baptism is a requirement for salvation," according to the Diocese of Phoenix.
On that page, the diocese stated that if a baptism is invalid, and you've received other sacraments, you may need to repeat some or all of them once your baptism is eventually valid.
Answering a question on the FAQ page if an invalid baptism would impact those married by the church, the diocese stated: "Maybe! Unfortunately, there is no single clear answer."
In his statement, Olmsted said that he did not believe Arango meant "to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments."
The minister often makes authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ. I'm not saying the baptisms are invalid, but it's an erroneous view, correct? The "community" doesn't baptize.But the Minister isn't Christ, so by this logic the formula ought to be "He now baptizes you..." and not "I now baptize you".
I would agree. The Great Commission plainly tells the disciples to baptize. As such I think the usual use of "I" is most appropriate. At the same time, I have trouble seeing the ommission of "I" as invaldating the rite. It essentially makes a single unspecified if logical pronoun equivalent to a security code of sorts, on which the efficacy of the entire ordinance rests.It does raise some interesting questions about our own practice. In most of our churches, we too use the phrase "I baptize you..." as part of the pronouncement. And we too would claim that in some sense the minister is speaking on behalf of Christ during a worship service, and that the minister rather than the whole congregation is performing the baptism (which makes "I" more appropriate than "we").
But I can't recall ever hearing a Reformed churchman say that "I baptize you..." should be understood as words coming from Christ. On the matter of who is ultimately validating the baptism in a spiritual sense, our answer is found the latter part of the pronouncement: "...in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Right?
Is there more here to ponder about the word "I," or does that pretty much cover it?
Sure, I realize this is the belief of many Reformed, and perhaps a majority here on PB. Yet, that being said, it seems that is likely a minority position within the larger Reformed community. Historically it has been debated amongst Protestants ever since Martin Luther. Further, and this is the main intent of this thread, is to consider some of the issues it raises that have relevance to various aspects of baptismal practice in general.“They are invalid for a different reason.”
- J.H. Thornwell (paraphrased)
I doubt it.Sure, I realize this is . . . perhaps a majority here on PB.
if a baptism is invalid, and you've received other sacraments, you may need to repeat some or all of them once your baptism is eventually valid.
It is my understanding from reading Peter Wallace's dissertation on the Old School Presbyterian Church that the first Reformed church to declare Roman Catholic baptism invalid was the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in the 1840s (which Wallace points out came during a wave of stong anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment in the country). I have no reason to question his research but was very surprised when I read that.Sure, I realize this is the belief of many Reformed, and perhaps a majority here on PB. Yet, that being said, it seems that is likely a minority position within the larger Reformed community. Historically it has been debated amongst Protestants ever since Martin Luther. Further, and this is the main intent of this thread, is to consider some of the issues it raises that have relevance to various aspects of baptismal practice in general.
It's a debated question. While I haven't studied the issue in-depth, I would imagine that the crux of the argument against hinges more on WCF 28.2: "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto," particularly whether that last part can apply to Roman Catholic priests.So just to clarify my understanding.. are the above posts implying most paedobaptists would hold to the WCF chapter 28 paragraph 7 in such a way that they would include those baptized in the RCC? I guess that's what the plain reading of that paragraph would indicate... but, I did not realize that.
Some problematic comments from the article.
But the Minister isn't Christ, so by this logic the formula ought to be "He now baptizes you..." and not "I now baptize you".
Thanks for sharing this! It looks very helpful.On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
As you can see, it is a link to @Travis Fentiman 's Reformed Books Online which has a section on this topic as well:
On the Roman Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid, that the Reformers’ Ministerial Calling was Valid, Necessity of Separation from Her & Whether Romanists may be Saved
“…that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of Go…reformedbooksonline.com
This link states that the WCF affirms the validity of RCC baptism, but I cannot find anything anywhere on the page to back up that claim. Also, I'm struggling to find that affirmation in the WCF. Does anyone know what this is referring to?On the validity of Rome's baptism, our session found this paper incredibly helpful and insightful:
As you can see, it is a link to @Travis Fentiman 's Reformed Books Online which has a section on this topic as well:
On the Roman Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid, that the Reformers’ Ministerial Calling was Valid, Necessity of Separation from Her & Whether Romanists may be Saved
“…that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of Go…reformedbooksonline.com