What % of Norvus Ordo baptisms are invalid?

[Cameron PM]

We had a problem in our diocese of priests saying "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier." The Bishop but his boot down and also censored a priest, then we got a new shepherd and the floodgates opened and the rules fell out.

[Lumen Christi]

We had a problem in our diocese of priests saying "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier." The Bishop but his boot down and also censored a priest, then we got a new shepherd and the floodgates opened and the rules fell out.

Props to your bishop for being a solid leader. The old one, anyway.

[dolores]

We had a problem in our diocese of priests saying "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier." The Bishop but his boot down and also censored a priest, then we got a new shepherd and the floodgates opened and the rules fell out.

I'm curious, is this "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" nonsense limited to baptism, or is it used in place of the Trinitarian formula all the time (e.g., blessing, beginning of Mass, etc.)?

[Older Salt]

The 10 or so I have been to have all been valid.
I was actually baptized by a transitional Deacon in 1966.

[Livenotonevil]

As long as he poured it on your head and said the correct form, then it was valid. Were the other catechumens male?

Yep, he poured it on my head & said the aforementioned formula ... but then was it. The priest swapped with another (more liberal-ish) priest who just dunked everyone one by one in the baptismal pool which was located in the middle of the church.

In my RCIY, there were 2 dudes. The rest of my RCIY-mates were fellow girls, if I remembered correctly.

The practice of "triple immersion" is actually the way the Early Christians baptized, as recorded via the Didache; the pouring on the water was also seen as legitimate, but only if the immersion of water wasn't available.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

The Eastern Churches (the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics) still Baptize by means of immersion.



If these Baptisms are seen as valid by the Roman Catholic Church, then I would think that such baptisms are valid.

[Stubborn]

The Eastern Churches (the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics) still Baptize by means of immersion.



If these Baptisms are seen as valid by the Roman Catholic Church, then I would think that such baptisms are valid.

See, in the video above, is the type of stupidity that causes doubt. Why can't he just say the formula correctly?

The Church is very precise and for 2000 years has been unwaveringly constant in regards the wording of the formula to be said by the minister, namely, he is to say; "I baptize you in the name of the Father etc."

In the video, he does not say that, he says; "The servant of God Spearnon(?) is baptized the name of the Father etc." So not only does he not say the formula correctly, he also does not say "in" the name of the Father", he just says  "the name of the Father" leaving out the word "in".

Sloppy job, no excuse for it, plain sloppy. If it were me, I might consider seeking a conditional baptism. Thankfully I don't really need to be concerned at all, but still - why the heck say anything other than the correct words?

It is only my opinion but I do believe the above youtube's baptism was valid, but still worth at least questioning. I think in a case like that, even the pre-conciliar Church authorities would scratch their heads, at least initially. 

[Gardener]

The East follows a different formula: http://www.archpitt.org/holy-christening/

St. John Chrysostom actually states that the one baptizing is not to say "I baptize you", because it is the action of Christ.

The key is that it's understood to be a Baptism with the proper mentioning of the persons of the Holy Trinity.

St. Thomas Aquinas covers the variations and arguments here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article5

[Lumen Christi]

Very interesting, Gardener. Thank you for sharing.