Dialogue on the Invalid Baptisms in Arizona

 A Facebook Conversation about this situation:

Thousands of baptisms invalidated by priest’s use of one wrong word

Priest in Phoenix, Arizona, resigns after mistakenly using the phrase ‘we baptize you’ instead of ‘I baptize you’ for years

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/16/arizona-baptisms-invalidated-priest-uses-one-wrong-word

BETH:   Perhaps you've seen the meme going around criticizing the Catholics for saying that the baptisms an Arizona priest did saying "WE baptize you..." rather than "I" baptize you.




Many of my evangelical and charismatic friends think the Catholic church is making a mountain out of a molehill. They claim that Catholics are making baptism to be "magical," so that if you don't have the right incantation it won't "work." This just confirms in their minds that the Catholic church is a place of superstition, legalism and spiritual bondage--a real Babylon.

I can see how those who hold the ordinance view of baptism and communion would think the sacramental view is "magic." They have no understanding of a premodernist sacramental view of the world. They have been spiritually formed by modernism, which focuses on the individual first, and only secondarily (if at all) on God. Remember Descartes, one of Granddaddies of Modernism (if not THE Granddaddy)? He starts with himself, and his experience, and then moves from that to God and then finally to the world. Many, many American evangelicals do the same thing. They also make personal experience to be not only the necessary but the sufficient condition for following Christ.

Thus, for those evangelicals, baptism is not an outward sign of an inward grace given by God; rather, it proclaims an INDIVIDUAL'S faith in God, and HIS or HER obedience to what God has commanded. The emphasis is first and foremost on the human being and what he or she is doing. God's gift is thus eclipsed by human action, contra Eph. 2:8-9.

<“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 wrote in a message posted to the Diocese of Phoenix website.

“I do not believe Fr Andres had any intentions to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments. On behalf of our local church, I too am sincerely sorry that this error has resulted in disruption to the sacramental lives of a number of the faithful.”>

As I understand it, Catholics believe a priest is like God's representative, kind of like like Protestants consider themselves "ambassadors of Christ." By saying "we" instead of "I" the priest in question has diminished Christ's agency. Even Lutherans should bristle at that. In Luther's Small Catechism, baptism is taken to be a WORK OF GOD by which the forgiveness of sins and salvation earned by Christ's death, and confirmed by Christ's resurrection, are GIVEN to the baptized person who believes God's Word that says He is doing exactly that in baptism. The emphasis is on God, not the baptized person.

It's ironic to me that evangelicals, who are always so careful to talk about how "God is in control" are so ready to judge Catholics here. IMO it's the Catholics who are displaying a stronger sense of God's agency and sovereignty than the evangelicals!

PERSON A1  (who is a Friend) To me the horror of this episode is the part about how anyone who received this baptism isn't really baptized and therefore their marriages aren't valid, their ordination aren't valid, even last rites aren't valid. Now THAT'S ridiculous

BETH: I see the situation as similar to the dying thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43. There is indeed a kind of baptism of intent, which the Lord clearly honors. But if intent were all that mattered, then why did Jesus insist on being baptized with water?

For those who hold a sacramental view of the world, God uses physical things as means of grace, not just ideas or intentions. Thus, for these Christians, the acts of baptism and communion need to reflect that truth. So there are two aspects that need to be preserved: God, and the physical elements He uses. To introduce another party, or to diminish the physical elements would be, for sacramentalists, a mistake.

Of course, those who do not hold a sacramental view of the world--including Friends--will not find that reasoning persuasive. Thus YMMV.

PERSON A:  Thanks Beth...I still think there should be grace for mistakes.

BETH:   Absolutely. But when we repent of our mistakes, we need to not only change our hearts/minds, but change our actions. I take Zacchaeus to be our model here of repentance.

PERSON B:  To me the horror of this episode is the part about how anyone who received this baptism isn't really baptized and therefore their marriages aren't valid, their ordination aren't valid, even last rites aren't valid. Now THAT'S ridiculous.

BETH:

I see the situation as similar to the dying thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43. There is indeed a kind of baptism of intent, which the Lord clearly honors. But if intent were all that mattered, then why did Jesus insist on being baptized with water?

For those who hold a sacramental view of the world, God uses physical things as means of grace, not just ideas or intentions. Thus, for these Christians, the acts of baptism and communion need to reflect that truth. So there are two aspects that need to be preserved: God, and the physical elements He uses. To introduce another party, or to diminish the physical elements would be, for sacramentalists, a mistake.

Of course, those who do not hold a sacramental view of the world--including Friends--will not find that reasoning persuasive. Thus YMMV.

PERSON C:

I really like this perspective as well:

https://www.facebook.com/1232873539/posts/10220735276631778/

BETH:  I have great respect for Jesuits, and Fr. Whitney makes a good argument. My only response would be that I don't see a whole lot of difference between "baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (an act of God) and saying that baptism is an act of God, not God AND human beings. So I don't see why there's any disagreement here between what I am saying and what Fr. Whitney is saying.

PERSON D: Sorry, Beth, but I’m having difficulty with this. Olmstead states, “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.” If so, then how does substituting the first-person singular pronoun (“I”) change the dynamic, since “I” stands here for the “Priest” performing the rite? By Olmstead’s argument, the script should read “Christ baptizes you . . . .”

BETH:but you forget that for Catholics, the priest, as Christ's representative, is Christ's mouth and hands, not his own. He acts "in persona Christ." (This is what the Reformers had trouble with, insisting instead on "the priesthood of the believer!") The principle of ex opere operato goes back centuries to the Donatist schism.

<According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, to receive the fruits of the sacraments requires that a person be properly disposed. This means the efficacy of grace via the sacraments is not automatic. There must be, at least in the case of an adult, an openness to use the sufficient grace which is available in a sacrament. When the recipient is properly disposed, "the sacraments are instrumental causes of grace."[8]

This principle holds that the efficacy of the sacrament is a result NOT of the holiness of a priest or minister, but rather of CHRIST himself who is the author (directly or indirectly) of each sacrament. The priest or minister acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), even if in a state of mortal sin. Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace efficacious, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of mortal sin.

The principle of ex opere operato affirms that while a proper disposition (openness) is necessary to exercise the efficacious grace in the sacraments, it is not the cause of the sufficient grace. Catholic Christians believe that what GOD offers in the sacraments is a gift, freely bestowed out of God’s own love. A person's disposition, as good as it may be, cannot merit supernatural grace or divine life, which remains a gift of God. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

So note that the Catholic understanding insists that
the first-person singular pronoun (“I”) DOES NOT change the dynamic, since “I” DOES NOT stand here for the “Priest” performing the rite, but for CHRIST.

The reason why the script does not say “Christ baptizes you . . . .” is because for Catholics, that is already understood. However, I can see how for Protestants that would need to be clarified and articulated.

PERSON D:

Thank you, Beth. That’s what I suspected. BTW, I was raised in the Lutheran church (ULCA at the time). Notwithstanding the Catholic tradition, is there not also something to be said for the Reformed concept of “the priesthood of all believers”, based on the Apostle’s reference to it in 1st Peter 2:9?

Paul’s treatise in Hebrews defines a PRIEST as one who INTERCEDES on behalf of man toward God, in contrast to the PROPHET, who acts like the mouthpiece of God toward mankind. I like to think of this as a contrast of directions—“upward” versus “downward.

BETH:

I think Christians can interpret Hebrews either way.

IMO Christians have spiritual personalities. Some are theocentric (thus prone to think primarily "upward"), some are Christocentric (thus prone to think primarily "downward") and some are Pneumacentric (thus prone to think "inward.") How we interpret scripture, and decide our ecclesiology depends a lot on our spiritual personalites, and the traditions that have formed them.

(P.S. As an Evangelical Covenanter, there are things that I don't think are worth splitting over. That is why we baptize both infants and believers. )

PERSON E (who is Episcopal) :   I think it reveals a low view of God to think his grace could be limited by a pronoun. Even "correct" baptisms say "I baptize YOU", and "you" can be plural in English. So how is God to know what the priest really means? And isn't "we" ok for the trinity anyway? So many things wrong with this.


BETH:
it's not about limiting grace. It's about acknowledging where that grace originates. (cf. Eph. 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."

Again, depending on your spiritual personality and the traditions that have formed you, you will either think that is an important aspect to recognize, or you won't.

<So how is God to know what the priest really means?>
I've always accepted that God is omniscient, so I figure that would include that he knows what the priest really means. 😉

<And isn't "we" ok for the trinity anyway?>
Of course it is, for Protestants! But that is not the Catholic tradition. Now, Protestants are quite happy to criticize Catholics for their reliance on "tradition." But we should be willing to admit that it is OUR tradition NOT to understand baptism as an act of Christ, but rather any number of different ways: "an act of the Trinity," or "an act of the church," or "an act of the individual professing his faith" etc.

PERSON E: Sorry Beth. I don't buy it.

BETH: Which is why you aren't Catholic! I must admit I feel a bit odd having to argue the Catholic side of this, but I hope it demonstrates my willingness to walk in shoes not my own, and try to understand those who wear those shoes.

PERSON F (who is Catholic)
Very well said, Beth. There is a minor addition to make: the priest is the primary person to administer baptism, but inn case of emergency, everyone can baptize if he wants to do what the Church wants to fi, using the established formula and using water. Even if they are not Christians themselves. This that not diminish the importance of baptism, but rather emphasizes its great significance.

PERSON G:
We need to go straight to source documents: https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/

BETH: THANK YOU! IMO the Diocese of Phoenix has  done an admirable job of collecting and answering questions related to this issue.

PERSON H (who is Mo. Synod Lutheran) Lutherans believes two things make a baptism valid: water, and the Word of God (in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). The actual agent does not matter for we do not fall in to the trap of donatism.

Baptism is the means of grace which God alone works and bestows blessings.

BETH: Yes. On this count, the Lutherans have a lot in common with the Catholics. (Not surprising, since Luther had been an Augustinian monk, and would have retained the Catholic church's view of Donatism as heretical.)

PERSON G:  I learned that the original "donatists" were early Christians who believed that the validity of sacraments was affected by the moral standing of the celebrant - and this crisis was precipitated by the return to ministry, at the end of the Roman persecution, of clergy who had given up (donated) things demanded by the Romans, thus saving their own skins.

Maybe they gave the legally required tithe to the god-emperor. Maybe they gave up copies of the sacred texts, or the vessels used for the Mass. Maybe some gave up other Christians.

Donatism is an entirely human reaction to betrayal, and in a crisis where those who stood on their principles died, it makes sense. But - while individuals remain morally responsible for their own sins, and while those sins may be grounds for removal from ministry, sacraments are not invalidated, because sacraments are works of Christ, not man (your point above).

It can be a pretty hard needle to thread. The abuse crisis in the Catholic church is a pretty strong impetus for a Donatist reaction. The cynical abuse of the sacrament of reconciliation by some of those perpetrators put them a moral wasteland that only God's justice and mercy can sort out.

So much simpler to resolve a problem where a priest used the wrong words. As my wise brother Dan once said - that is the kind of problem to have.

On a minimalist level, practical effect for the effected Catholics is they need to get a 30 second baptism. On an emotional leval I can see a lot of angst - but I was also taught that salvation wise, the intent of the people involved in this sort of thing was what matters. Gos will not hold a technical mistake against you.

And now dor Catholic inside baseball, over at the diocese marriage tribunal, (Catholic Divorce Court) just maybe someone gets their marriage regularized or annulled because of this loophole. Or at least moved to the head of the pile.

BETH:

<It is important to note that, while God instituted the sacraments for us, He is not bound by them. Though they are our surest access to grace, God can grant His grace in ways known only to Him. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God has bound Himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by the sacraments. This means that while we can be certain that God always works through the sacraments when they are properly conferred by the minister, God is not bound by the sacraments in that He can and does extend His grace in whatever measure and manner He wills. We can be assured that all who approached God, our Father, in good faith to receive the sacraments did not walk away empty-handed.> https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/

Is it the case that Christians who believe in a "second blessing" are in an analogous situation with Catholics who are sacramentalists? ISTM that glossolia/healing/prophecy/"being filled with the Spirit" is the Charismatics' equivalent of the Catholics' sacraments: having those divinely inspired powers is their surest access to God's grace. As such, they want everyone to experience those gifts.

I have known charismatics who prayed mightily that I might speak in tongues, and who were sad when I hadn't. They would not have said I was not a Christian, ( "walking away empty-handed") but it was clear that they thought my Christian experience was not complete because I had not been "filled." Well, ISTM that the same thing can be said of the Diocese of Phoenix: they are saying that these baptisms are "incomplete, " but they are also affirming that those who have had them are not "walking away empty-handed."

PERSON A1: I've been thinking about this. It seems to me that the saying "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath " could easily be interpreted as "rituals were made for people and not people for the rituals."

BETH: And faithful Catholics like Bishop Olmsted would agree with you. (Did you read   https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/  )

PERSON A1: So, they don't think one "wrong" word nullifies the whole ritual?

BETH: not in the sense you seem to be understanding it.

And as far as "rituals" go, every church has them. The Friends' silent worship is just as much a ritual as any Catholic communion or Baptist altar call.

PERSON A1:

Friends' silent worship is a ritual in one sense, but there is no prescribed language that MUST be used for it to be valid.

I did just read the whole article. It does say that the CDF believes that changing one word negates the baptism. So some Catholics do believe that .

BETH:

<Friends' silent worship is a ritual in one sense, but there is no prescribed language that MUST be used for it to be valid.>

That's because Friends don't believe in sacraments. So your problem here is not simply that "we" was used instead of "I," but that Catholics think that God uses visible things to impart an invisible grace. Your issue is with the sacraments as a whole, and the fact that the rituals Catholics practice are not the same as the ones Friends practice.

Perhaps it will be helpful for you to think of the situation with Fr. Andres as analogous to Apollos in Acts 18:24-26. Just like Priscilla and Aquila "took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him," so Bishop Olmsted has explained the way of God (as Catholics understand it) to Fr. Andres.

It's not that these baptisms have been negated--as if those baptized are coming away "empty-handed," --but that they aren't complete. A person who has one more class to go before getting their degree still doesn't have the degree. In that sense, their education has been "negated." But in another sense, they have acquired much more knowledge than they once had, so they are not coming away "empty-handed." But to get the diploma, they need that last class. Do you think the student should be able to say "I've got my BA," without having completed all that was necessary for it?

PERSON A1:

These are very helpful comments. Thank you.

The metaphor comparing a diploma to a sacrament is flawed, however. A diploma is earned, so if the learning isn't complete, the earning is not yet complete. But a baptism, and the grace that comes with it, is imparted. The gift should not be regarded as needing to be re-given because the giver didn't use the proper color of ribbon.

BETH:

Fair enough. So let me give you another analogy, inspired by a true story.

Jean was an art student at the Sorbonne. She had a friend, Natalie, who lived in Rome and invited her to come see the Sistine Chapel, the Borghese Gallery and the Vatican Museum. Jean was afraid of flying, so she decided to drive from Paris to Rome.

Her parents were concerned about her making the journey by car, so they bought her a GPS device to use for the trip. But being technologically challenged, she stopped at a gas station for someone to program it for her. An attendant was more than happy to help. With a "tap-tap-tap-enter," she was able to be on her way.

She drove and drove. The GPS was taking an unusual route, Jean thought, but she trusted that it knew the way better than she did. Soon the GPS notified her that she had reached her destination. She saw a sign on what appeared to be the outskirts of town and phoned Natalie. “I’m here!”

”Wow! Where exactly are you?” asked Natalie.

Jean looked at the sign, which wasn't in the best of shape. “There's a sign here that says Rom!” she replied.

”Wait,” said Natalie. “How fast have you been driving? You couldn’t possibly be here yet!” And indeed Jean wasn’t in Rome. She was in Rom, a tiny hamlet in the hills of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Germany, due east from Amsterdam and a good 600 miles from the Italian border.

The attendant had forgotten to enter the final “e.”

"Oh dear." said Natalie. "We need to find you someone who can reprogram your GPS so you can get here."

It's not that Jean's trip had been negated—as if she was coming away "empty-handed”--but her trip wasn’t complete. She had left France, but she wasn’t yet in Italy. And Jean was still technologically challenged, so fortunately Natalie found someone who had experience with that type of GPS to take the device and re-enter the destination for her. Thanks to Natalie, who noticed the error and got things back on track, Jean made it to Rome. Her journey was finally complete, and they had a great time together viewing artwork.

Of course no analogy is perfect. But here,

1) Jean is a person seeking baptism in the Catholic church.

2) The GPS is the act of baptism, imparting something not earned.

3) “Rome” is the state of being baptized according to the sacraments of the Catholic church.

4) “Rom” is the state of being baptized, but not according to the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

5) The gas station attendant is Fr. Andres.

6) Natalie is Bishop Olmsted.

Does this do a better job of helping explain the situation?

( my analogy was inspired by the true story of Luigi Rimonti <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/03/wrongful-arrest-life-saving-romance-typos-that-changed-lives> )