Author Topic: Is this a legit baptism?  (Read 895 times)

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13739
  • Thanked: 6043 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2020, 04:32:29 PM »
You have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is what you did.  It is that simple.  You are in error, stop trying to slither out of it.

You misunderstood what I said and I have already told you that I did not declare the formula invalid. I explicitly said there was a risk of it being invalid. I do not know why you are insisting that I said something I did not say.

Of course, I have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is why I did not do it.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Thanked: 3946 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2020, 05:15:26 PM »
You have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is what you did.  It is that simple.  You are in error, stop trying to slither out of it.

You misunderstood what I said and I have already told you that I did not declare the formula invalid. I explicitly said there was a risk of it being invalid. I do not know why you are insisting that I said something I did not say.

Of course, I have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is why I did not do it.

Philip G. has some trouble interpreting texts. It's not the first time.

It's better to leave it like that.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jayne, Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
  • Thanked: 355 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2020, 07:51:03 PM »
You have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is what you did.  It is that simple.  You are in error, stop trying to slither out of it.

You misunderstood what I said and I have already told you that I did not declare the formula invalid. I explicitly said there was a risk of it being invalid. I do not know why you are insisting that I said something I did not say.

Of course, I have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is why I did not do it.

Philip G. has some trouble interpreting texts. It's not the first time.

It's better to leave it like that.

Do you belong here?  This is not the non-catholic discussion subforum. 
« Last Edit: October 04, 2020, 07:53:15 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3061
  • Thanked: 805 times
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2020, 08:52:33 AM »
I have no idea if it is invalid or not, but isn't there supposed to be a mystical reason for baptising in the one name of the three persons? By changing the formula to "in the name of ___, and in the name of ___, and in the name of ___", it is no longer clear that the baptism is in one name rather than in three separate names. edit - But I notice that the formula mentioned by the OP doesn't separate each clause using the word "and", so perhaps it's to be taken as one name followed by two appositives?


Now this is a little off topic, but what exactly does it mean to baptise someone "in the name of" someone? I mean, who or what is the subject of this predicate?
Is it saying that the baptizer is "in" God?
Is it saying that recipient is being baptised "into" God? (If this, would the English form "I baptise you into the name of ..." be valid?) [edit - on second thought, I don't think this is it. Because that wouldn't make sense for the similarly-formulated "I absolve thee in the name of ..."]
Is it saying that the baptism itself is somehow "in" God?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 09:22:37 AM by Daniel »
 

Offline paul14

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • Thanked: 208 times
  • When life gets you down, tell it to **** off!
  • Religion: Yes Dear
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2020, 12:51:52 PM »
You have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is what you did.  It is that simple.  You are in error, stop trying to slither out of it.

You misunderstood what I said and I have already told you that I did not declare the formula invalid. I explicitly said there was a risk of it being invalid. I do not know why you are insisting that I said something I did not say.

Of course, I have no right to declare the formula invalid.  That is why I did not do it.

Philip G. has some trouble interpreting texts. It's not the first time.

It's better to leave it like that.

Do you belong here?  This is not the non-catholic discussion subforum.

Touche!   :laugh:
 

Offline mikemac

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8162
  • Thanked: 4385 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Is this a legit baptism?
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2020, 02:30:56 PM »
I have no idea if it is invalid or not, but isn't there supposed to be a mystical reason for baptising in the one name of the three persons? By changing the formula to "in the name of ___, and in the name of ___, and in the name of ___", it is no longer clear that the baptism is in one name rather than in three separate names. edit - But I notice that the formula mentioned by the OP doesn't separate each clause using the word "and", so perhaps it's to be taken as one name followed by two appositives?


Now this is a little off topic, but what exactly does it mean to baptise someone "in the name of" someone? I mean, who or what is the subject of this predicate?
Is it saying that the baptizer is "in" God?
Is it saying that recipient is being baptised "into" God? (If this, would the English form "I baptise you into the name of ..." be valid?) [edit - on second thought, I don't think this is it. Because that wouldn't make sense for the similarly-formulated "I absolve thee in the name of ..."]
Is it saying that the baptism itself is somehow "in" God?

From the Baltimore Catechism
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Q. 633. Who can administer Baptism?

A. A priest is the ordinary minister of baptism; but in case of necessity anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.

Q. 638. How is Baptism given?

A. Whoever baptizes should pour water on the head of the person to be baptized, and say, while pouring the water: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is “despair, overcome.”
Source
 
The following users thanked this post: Jayne