Unusual Baptism

Started by Fuerza, August 20, 2022, 02:19:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fuerza

Given the relatively recent press about invalid baptisms in the Church, I've taken an interest in the way baptism is administered in the  Catholic and various Orthodox Churches, and have been watching various youtube videos. I came across this one, in which the priest (coud be a minister, I can't actually tell if this is a Catholic or Protestant service) mixes up the formula, saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son...". He also inserts a comment after the "Father", which sounds like "nice and warm." What do you all think about this from a traditionalist point of view? Valid or Invalid? The baptism occurs at about the 3:00 mark.

I also found some interesting and "unorthodox" baptisms in the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, but I'll save those for a later post.

Jmartyr

I would say invalid because it contradicts the plain words of the bible, but I could be wrong.
"If anyone is excommunicated it is not I, but the excommunicators." - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
" A false church cannot have a true mission." - St. Francis De Sales
" The way is open for us to deprive councils of their authority, contradict their acts freely, and profess confidently, whatever SEEMS to be true. " - Martin Luther

Stubborn

It' a good bet that it's a NO baptism since toward the very end, the priest give his blessing with the typical sign of the cross and they all make the sign of the cross. As far as I know, prots don't make the sign of the cross in their religion.

But like all things NO, even though he did mention all three persons of the Blessed Trinity, he screwed up the order of words of the formula which in my mind, leaves room for doubtful validity. I would seek a conditional baptism from a trad priest.

If nothing else, this is a very good example of why we must always avoid all things NO.   
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

Michael Wilson

Altering the order of the words of the Form could render the sacrament doubtful, if not invalid. Rev. Henry Davis S.J. "Pastoral and Moral Theology"; in either case, this Baptism should be repeated conditionally. 
QuoteFr. Henry Davis S.J. Moral and Pastoral Theology, Ch. VII: "The Use Of Probable Opinions":
I conferring the Sacraments (as also in Consecration in Mass), It is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary  was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments, there is no doubt that it is a triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion. The same is true of none who uses a probable opinion in the reception of a Sacrament, in respect of its matter or form, for his action exposes the Sacrament to invalidity.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

I looked up what St. Thomas stated in the "Summa" III Q. 60 art. 8;
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8
Quote
Article 8. Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?
I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (III:64:8. Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.

The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (Article 7, Reply to Objection 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist—"For this is My Body," the omission of the word "for" does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt....
Reply to Objection 3. If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.

The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum: "Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm. x).
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Fuerza

Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 21, 2022, 11:26:45 AM
I looked up what St. Thomas stated in the "Summa" III Q. 60 art. 8;
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8
Quote
Article 8. Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?
I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (III:64:8. Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.

The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (Article 7, Reply to Objection 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist—"For this is My Body," the omission of the word "for" does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt....
Reply to Objection 3. If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.

The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum: "Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm. x).

So unless I'm reading that wrong, the last paragraph would seem to imply that the above baptism could be valid so long as the priest did not intend any heterodox trinitarian theology. Is that how you read it or am I missing something?

Michael Wilson

That is how I read it. The changing of the order of the names of the Blessed Trinity does not appear to be a substantial change in the form of the sacrament.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Goldfinch

Quote from: Stubborn on August 21, 2022, 08:48:47 AMIt' a good bet that it's a NO baptism since toward the very end, the priest give his blessing with the typical sign of the cross and they all make the sign of the cross. As far as I know, prots don't make the sign of the cross in their religion.

This is incorrect. Some Protestant sects like the Lutherans and the Anglicans certainly do it.
"For there are no works of power, dearly-beloved, without the trials of temptations, there is no faith without proof, no contest without a foe, no victory without conflict. This life of ours is in the midst of snares, in the midst of battles; if we do not wish to be deceived, we must watch: if we want to overcome, we must fight." - St. Leo the Great

Elizabeth

Quote from: Goldfinch on August 23, 2022, 09:27:27 AM

This is incorrect. Some Protestant sects like the Lutherans and the Anglicans certainly do it.
Once I went to mass at the National Cathedral in DC, in ignorance.  They most definitely did the Mass way more beautifully than the pitiful N.O. I was attending, and it confused me.  They did the Sign of the Cross.

andy

Quote from: Fuerza on August 20, 2022, 02:19:35 PM
coud be a minister, I can't actually tell if this is a Catholic or Protestant service

Does not sum it up?

But it is in the Catholic church, the minister mentions one that he is the Priest, there is a prayer saying Catholic church, the blessing, etc.

The priest, despite his jokes and and attempts to keep the people amused, seems to have a proper intention, stating at some point "that book says it all". He also did not say anything stupid, like this is a reception to the community - which would make his intention doubtful. But no mention of erasing the original sin. Not necessary though.

The lady in the white outfit is awful and does not know how to behave, she dips a pacifier in the baptismal font at some point.


But the form, it is not only changing of the order of the words, but adding that "it is nice and warm" -  a total ignorance.

The real question: is changing the order of Persons in the Holy Trinity a minor issue? I would say no.

Goldfinch

Quote from: andy on August 23, 2022, 07:00:46 PM
The real question: is changing the order of Persons in the Holy Trinity a minor issue? I would say no.

It's not a minor thing. While it does not represent a substantial change in the form of the sacrament, it's still doubtful. It should be repeated conditionally, as Michael pointed out.

The worst part of cases like this is the infidelity and ego of the priest. How hard can it be to stick to the form and the plain words of Christ?
"For there are no works of power, dearly-beloved, without the trials of temptations, there is no faith without proof, no contest without a foe, no victory without conflict. This life of ours is in the midst of snares, in the midst of battles; if we do not wish to be deceived, we must watch: if we want to overcome, we must fight." - St. Leo the Great

Fuerza

Quote from: Goldfinch on August 23, 2022, 08:37:47 PM
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2022, 07:00:46 PM
The real question: is changing the order of Persons in the Holy Trinity a minor issue? I would say no.

It's not a minor thing. While it does not represent a substantial change in the form of the sacrament, it's still doubtful. It should be repeated conditionally, as Michael pointed out.

The worst part of cases like this is the infidelity and ego of the priest. How hard can it be to stick to the form and the plain words of Christ?

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that this was a momentary mental lapse, though it seems a pretty odd mistake to make. Hopefully it is in fact valid. If it is invalid or doubtful, the odds that this child will ever have a conditional baptism are very small, especially given that that video is over ten years old. The main issue I have is not with any single possibly invalid baptism, though that of course is serious. For any given individual who is invalidly baptized through no fault of his own, we would have to trust in the mercy of God. Where it becomes a problem is if this modification of the formula is something that happens more often. If one of these children grows up to be a priest or a bishop, obviously we have a real problem.

Now I would speculate that God does not often inspire the invalidly baptized with a calling to the priesthood, and that if He does it is with good reason (think of those two priests who recently found out that they had been baptized with the "We baptize you" formula-the very fact that they were priests is what ultimately called attention to the decades-long use of an invalid formula in these parishes), it's still a cause for concern. Some other videos I found of questionable baptisms in the Oriental Orthodox Churches, particularly the Armenian Apostolic Church, also cause concern for similar reasons, but I'm going to dedicate a separate post to that at some point when I get the energy.

Christus Rex

#12
The form should be: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Instead, the priest said: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, oh it's so nice and warm, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son our Lord Jesus Christ and we all say... Amen."

My guess is that it is not valid. 

If it was my child, I would rebaptize him myself conditionally.  I would also try to be present for the next baptism that the priest performed to see if he does it the same  If he again added the words, "oh it's so nice and warm," I would suspect he was doing it intentionally to invalidate the baptism.