Vatican unbaptizes some Catholics

[eight bits]

I read this today and suspected it was a joke.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2020/09/25/religion-is-not-spell-casting/

You know, some Baptist having a josh at Catholics' expense (and there is some of that in the blog post).

But no, the Catholic church through its official organs and with the personal approval of the Pope decided in June that persons baptized with the words "WE baptize you ..." rather than "I baptize you..." are not now and never were baptized. Which is a problem if you thought you were a Catholic priest, because you can't be ordained a priest unless you've been baptized first.

Here's the official (English) announcement from a Vatican website:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein

This is not a joke.

Sure enough, after the ruling came down, a thought-to-be priest in Detroit reviewed a video of his baptism - or what would have been his baptism except the officiant said "We" instead of "I." He turned himself in to his bishop.

This has a domino effect. None of the sacraments (mainly penance and eucharist) that require a priest were validly performed by this non-priest. Marriages may be OK (theoretically the people getting married "perform" the sacrament, not the priest), and baptisms performed by the priest (using the right formula, of course) are definitely OK - anybody can baptize anybody else (terms and conditions apply).

Discussion?

Edited September 26, 2020 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

This is not a joke.

It has always been a joke.

[Autochthon1990]

Well how in the hell are you supposed to know which one was used back when you weren't even sentient? 

[toast]

6 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Well how in the hell are you supposed to know which one was used back when you weren't even sentient? 

Its irrelevant, like the whole hocus-pocus.

[Wistman]

We are not sure what our priest said, when we were an infant.  Does the pope use the royal we (nosism) in his encyclicles? 

Quote

Popes have historically used the we as part of their formal speech, for example as used in Notre charge apostolique, Mit brennender Sorge, and Non abbiamo bisogno. Since Pope John Paul II, however, the royal we has been dropped by popes in public speech, although formal documents may have retained it. Recent important papal documents still use the majestic plural in the original Latin but are given with the singular I in their official English translations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

We see.

[Helen of Annoy]

Vatican did not unbaptise any Catholics. Once baptised, you cannot be unbaptized. You can be excommunicated, but it didn't happen here. 

What happened is that baptisms performed using incorrect words were found to be invalid.

The explanation is clear, from religious point of view it makes sense. 

 

In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense.

It's hilariously rigid and bureaucratic and a nice example of why I don't go to church. If there's higher power it certainly isn't some sort of bureaucrat waiting for you to say the exact formula.  

[Wepwawet]

Nos sunt non est exhilaratus ut hoc documentum non est scriptum in latine

We are not amused

[Orphalesion]

Why would they do anything like that? (I mean I know wondering why the Vatican engages in silly/stupid behavior is redundant, but still...)

All they are going to do with retroactively invalidating baptisms is causing unnecessary anxiety among their followers...

[rashore]

Wel gosh.... I kind of thought the we was a bit of royal, meaning the priest working with the holy. Would that then mean the priest working of themselves as "I" then? Without the other of holy that makes it a we?

I can understand if the CC wants to update to only I in its language to an extent. But not grandfathering in generations of baptized folks from when we was still correct form does not serve any logical purpose as far as I can see. 

[eight bits]

20 minutes ago, rashore said:

Wel gosh.... I kind of thought the we was a bit of royal, meaning the priest working with the holy. Would that then mean the priest working of themselves as "I" then? Without the other of holy that makes it a we?

The issue appears to be that the person administering the baptism is supposed to represent Jesus, but the "we" formula arises from a wish to express a welcome on behalf of the whole church community. These are not inherently antithetical ideas - the whole church is "the mystical body of Christ," so its welcome is Jesus's welcome. Or, so I think some people sincerely believed.

Anyway, the "I" is a reference to Jesus, and whoever is administering the baptism (not necessarily a priest) is "standing in" for Jesus.

20 minutes ago, rashore said:

I can understand if the CC wants to update to only I in its language to an extent. But not grandfathering in generations of baptized folks from when we was still correct form does not serve any logical purpose as far as I can see. 

There was a choice made between designating the WE form "illicit" but valid (more or less: knock it off, but if it happens and the baptism is otherwise valid, then this won't make invalid) OR, as the Vatican chose to proceed, make the WE form both illicit and invalid.

Since the choice does appear to be a rule rather than a revelation, I am surprised that they didn't just correct the situation as soon as the Archbishop of Detroit learned of the problem (and presumably phoned Rome for assistance). Illicit with provisions for disciplinary action for repeat WE-users, for example, would be an option (and may yet happen as more people become aware of the situation).

Edited September 26, 2020 by eight bits

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

I read this today and suspected it was a joke.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2020/09/25/religion-is-not-spell-casting/

You know, some Baptist having a josh at Catholics' expense (and there is some of that in the blog post).

But no, the Catholic church through its official organs and with the personal approval of the Pope decided in June that persons baptized with the words "WE baptize you ..." rather than "I baptize you..." are not now and never were baptized. Which is a problem if you thought you were a Catholic priest, because you can't be ordained a priest unless you've been baptized first.

Here's the official (English) announcement from a Vatican website:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein

This is not a joke.

Sure enough, after the ruling came down, a thought-to-be priest in Detroit reviewed a video of his baptism - or what would have been his baptism except the officiant said "We" instead of "I." He turned himself in to his bishop.

This has a domino effect. None of the sacraments (mainly penance and eucharist) that require a priest were validly performed by this non-priest. Marriages may be OK (theoretically the people getting married "perform" the sacrament, not the priest), and baptisms performed by the priest (using the right formula, of course) are definitely OK - anybody can baptize anybody else (terms and conditions apply).

Discussion?

Why would God require someone to be baptised or not?

This is about the Catholic Church not God.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, I was never baptized.  So, I have nothing to worry about.  

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

None of the sacraments (mainly penance and eucharist) that require a priest were validly performed by this non-priest. Marriages may be OK (theoretically the people getting married "perform" the sacrament, not the priest), and baptisms performed by the priest (using the right formula, of course) are definitely OK - anybody can baptize anybody else (terms and conditions apply).

Luckily, my hubby and I, and daughter and son-in-law were married by a justice of the peace.  Can’t go wrong there, right?  

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

Wel gosh.... I kind of thought the we was a bit of royal, meaning the priest working with the holy. Would that then mean the priest working of themselves as "I" then? Without the other of holy that makes it a we?

I can understand if the CC wants to update to only I in its language to an extent. But not grandfathering in generations of baptized folks from when we was still correct form does not serve any logical purpose as far as I can see. 

Well lookie lookie you've been playing hookie. How are you Rashore?

[XenoFish]

That's it, all of you are pope's. And the first act of being a pope is to excommunicate all the other pope's.

[quiXilver]

eat his body...

drink his blood...

 

wtf is wrong with people?

[Piney]

22 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

eat his body...

drink his blood...

Live for his glory like a beggar, sycophant and prude......then ask his forgiveness for beating one off. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Does the Pope honestly think his Omnipresent God really gives a damn about Priests quibbling over Semantics? How was the Pope, himself, Baptized? Are Jesuits fond of I or We?

[Helen of Annoy]

And then they wonder why people are not flocking to church. 

It's probably a war of factions going on, that has little to do with actual doctrine - that could easily be interpreted in favour of the "we" too. 

Someone wanted to make a point and highlight the influence of their faction and remind the public that they still want to claim that the clergy holds the keys to heaven. (Which they don't. Any honest person is more capable of performing any rite than an actual priest who happens to be an unrepentant sinner too. And lust for power, malice and greed are sins.)

  

I was baptized in secrecy, due to interesting political climate in my country at that primordial time when I was born, and several people risked having serious problems because of my baptism. 

Imagining that some bureaucrat would nitpick about the exact words said at that occasion makes me laugh, heartily.

 

The longer I think about this, the more certain I am there's a bunch of particularly destructive atheists in Vatican who need an exorcism.   

[rashore]

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Well lookie lookie you've been playing hookie. How are you Rashore?

Getting better. And yourself?

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, rashore said:

Getting better. And yourself?

I'm still alive, I think...

[rashore]

50 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'm still alive, I think...

If you're not, it sure would be unusual for you to still be posting. 

[XenoFish]

43 minutes ago, rashore said:

If you're not, it sure would be unusual for you to still be posting. 

I'm "haunting" the forum.

[GoldenWolf]

17 hours ago, rashore said:

Wel gosh.... I kind of thought the we was a bit of royal, meaning the priest working with the holy. Would that then mean the priest working of themselves as "I" then? Without the other of holy that makes it a we?

I can understand if the CC wants to update to only I in its language to an extent. But not grandfathering in generations of baptized folks from when we was still correct form does not serve any logical purpose as far as I can see. 

i was thinking something very similar.  Maybe it has some subconscious attachment to Matthew 28:17 and we is just too "socialistic" to them.

It dehumanizes and demoralizes those not higher up in the Church hierarchy i.m.o.