Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Invalid Catholic Baptisms?


Recommended Posts

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-andres-arango-baptisms-invalid-phoenix-church/

Quote

A Catholic priest in Phoenix has resigned from his position after a church investigation found he had been incorrectly performing baptisms over his 20-year career — rendering the rite invalid for thousands of people, according to Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix.

As he poured the holy water during the baptisms he performed, the Rev. Andres Arango would say, "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

But Father Arango misstated one word: "We baptize" should have been "I baptize." And getting that word wrong nullified all of the rituals he performed using that language.

"If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized," Olmsted wrote in a message to parishioners. "You will need to be baptized."

"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." 

The Diocese of Phoenix added that it did not believe Father Arango "had any intentions to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments."

"I too am sincerely sorry that this error has resulted in disruption to the sacramental lives of a number of the faithful. This is why I pledge to take every step necessary to remedy the situation for everyone impacted," Olmsted said.

He said that after a careful study by diocesan officials," all of the baptisms Arango performed up until June 17, 2021, are presumed invalid. Baptisms performed by Arango after that date are presumed valid and there is no need to repeat them.

Arango previously served in parishes in Phoenix , Brazil and San Diego, according to the Catholic News Service. The diocese has created a website for anyone who believes their baptism was invalid. 

In a statement, Father Arango asked his parishioners for forgiveness and announced that he'd resigned as pastor of the St. Gregory parish in Phoenix, effective February 1.

"It saddens me to learn that I have performed invalid baptisms throughout my ministry as a priest by regularly using an incorrect formula," he said. "I deeply regret my error and how this has affected numerous people in your parish and elsewhere ... I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my actions have caused and genuinely ask for your prayers, forgiveness, and understanding," Arango said.

Dozens of people attended a farewell celebration for Father Arango in January and some St. Gregory parishoners have launched a petition asking that Arango stay on as pastor.

"As part of his pastoral leadership, Father Andres reinvigorated the church community by renovating its facilities, giving parishioners and faith seekers a spiritual home that is open to all," it said. "The St. Gregory's community will never be the same without him."

According to the Diocese of Phoenix, Arango remains in "good standing" as a priest and "has not disqualified himself from his vocation and ministry." As of right now, other sacraments performed by Arango are considered valid, the diocese said.

 

"With the help of the Holy Spirit and in communion with the Diocese of Phoenix I will dedicate my energy and full time ministry to help remedy this and heal those affected," Arango said.

I didn’t know other churches took the exact wording of ordinances so seriously. The reasons given in the article interest me. What does this mean for anyone he baptized incorrectly who has since passed away or for those who take Communion? Since it so imperative to say the prayer correctly, are there no witnesses who would correct such an error at a Catholic baptism?
 
We LDS also require exact ordinance words, but because of the mandatory presence of witness we are usually able to avoid situations like this. One brother said in church last Sunday that when he was blessing the sacrament as a priest he once had to repeat the prayer 16 times. I’ve never heard anything that extreme, but I have heard it repeated three or four times. That probably is not a reason for an LDS priest to resign.

Comments? Why do you think precise wording for ordinances is required?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

I read a KSL article of that story. The reason explained raised some questions for me for my Catholic and trinitarian friends.  Here is the explanation:

 "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,"
 

First, is this tue in Catholicism that it is perceived as Christ who baptizes?  In Mormonism it is the priesthood holder who baptizes under the authority of Christ.

Second, my understanding of the trinity is that God is actually 3 distinct persons, and the baptismal prayer is actually performed in the names of all 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holly Ghost/Spirit).  Given this fact, wouldn’t it be correct to say “we baptize you...) given that the ordinance is done in the names of 3 distinct persons?

Third, shouldnt the baptizer say “he baptizes you...” rather than “I...”.  Unless it is believed that the baptizer actually becomes Christ in some form of transubstantiation... 

I remember on my mission a member of the ward baptized an investigator we taught in a river by his house.  We later were teaching his adult son about baptism and somehow the issue of raising the right arm to the square was brought up and the non-member son who attended his father’s baptism said that his father needs to be re-baptizes then.  We all kind of blew him off but he insisted that it was done wrong.  He actually took a picture of the baptism and brought it to us as proof, sure enough this member had his left hand raised to the square and we missed it as witnesses.  The son and father were both baptized and rebaptized correctly. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-andres-arango-baptisms-invalid-phoenix-church/

I didn’t know other churches took the exact wording of ordinances so seriously. The reasons given in the article interest me. What does this mean for anyone he baptized incorrectly who has since passed away or for those who take Communion? Since it so imperative to say the prayer correctly, are there no witnesses who would such an correct error at a Catholic baptism
 
We LDS require exact ordinance words, but because of the mandatory presence of witness we are usually able to avoid situations like this. One brother said in church last Sunday that when he was once blessing the sacrament as a priest he once had to repeat the prayer 16 times. I’ve never heard anything that extreme, but I have heard it repeated three or four times. That probably is not a reason for an LDS priest to resign.

Comments? Why do you think precise wording for ordinances is required?

This is even more curious to me given a recent discussion we were having on the board (here) about why the Catholic church doesn't accept baptisms performed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This link was posted to explain the reasons:  THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, by Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J.  And the article explains that doctrinal errors don't usually invalidate a baptism, and the right intention typically makes the baptism valid, and even the baptisms performed by the Arians were accepted by the Catholic church.   It really seems odd to me that the word "we" would invalidate the baptisms (in their way of thinking) based on the general acceptance of baptisms done with the right intent.  

 

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-andres-arango-baptisms-invalid-phoenix-church/

I didn’t know other churches took the exact wording of ordinances so seriously. The reasons given in the article interest me. What does this mean for anyone he baptized incorrectly who has since passed away or for those who take Communion? Since it so imperative to say the prayer correctly, are there no witnesses who would such an correct error at a Catholic baptism
 
We LDS require exact ordinance words, but because of the mandatory presence of witness we are usually able to avoid situations like this. One brother said in church last Sunday that when he was once blessing the sacrament as a priest he once had to repeat the prayer 16 times. I’ve never heard anything that extreme, but I have heard it repeated three or four times. That probably is not a reason for an LDS priest to resign.

Comments? Why do you think precise wording for ordinances is required?

Thankfully, we have a provision that allows the First Presidency to ratify ordinances that may have been done incorrectly (like out of order, for example).  If an ordinance is done and the witnesses do not notice that it was done incorrectly (and I guess no one else does either) then we believe that the ordinance is still valid in the eyes of God.

 

 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

I read a KSL article of that story. The reason explained raised some questions for me for my Catholic and trinitarian friends.  Here is the explanation:

 "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,"
 

First, is this tue in Catholicism that it is perceived as Christ who baptizes?  In Mormonism it is the priesthood holder who baptizes under the authority of Christ.

Second, my understanding of the trinity is that God is actually 3 distinct persons, and the baptismal prayer is actually performed in the names of all 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holly Ghost/Spirit).  Given this fact, wouldn’t it be correct to say “we baptize you...) given that the ordinance is done in the names of 3 distinct persons?

Third, shouldnt the baptizer say “he baptizes you...” rather than “I...”.  Unless it is believed that the baptizer actually becomes Christ in some form of transubstantiation... 

I remember on my mission a member of the ward baptized an investigator we taught in a river by his house.  We later were teaching his adult son about baptism and somehow the issue of raising the right arm to the square was brought up and the non-member son who attended his father’s baptism said that his father needs to be re-baptizes then.  We all kind of blew him off but he insisted that it was done wrong.  He actually took a picture of the baptism and brought it to us as proof, sure enough this member had his left hand raised to the square and we missed it as witnesses.  The son and father were both baptized and rebaptized correctly. 

Maybe the photo was reversed in processing?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We LDS require exact ordinance words, but because of the mandatory presence of witness we are usually able to avoid situations like this. One brother said in church last Sunday that when he was once blessing the sacrament as a priest he once had to repeat the prayer 16 times. I’ve never heard anything that extreme, but I have heard it repeated three or four times. That probably is not a reason for an LDS priest to resign.

The handbook actually addresses this now (18.9.4)

Quote

The bishop uses discretion when asking for the prayer to be repeated. He ensures that doing so does not cause undue embarrassment or detract from the ordinance. Another person at the sacrament table can help as needed.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The handbook actually addresses this now (18.9.4)

 

The first time I passed the sacrament as a deacon, I bumped the tray on a pew and dumped all the bread on the floor. Yes, I was embarrassed.

Link to comment

I’m curious how he could make the same mistake for thousands of baptisms and never be corrected. 

Link to comment

Father Matthew Hood’s father found a video of Matthew’s baptism and realized it was done wrong. Therefore, it was decided that everything he had done as a priest was invalid including the last rites he performed for his own grandmother. The “we” version was seen as a valid variation by some leaders.

Edited by birdgirl
Link to comment

Doesn't the Catholic Church's (and ours as well) decision stemming from the Donatist schism come into play here? (page 19, footnote 40)?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1661&context=msr

Improper wording on an ordinance can't invalidate all ordinances one performs, or we literally can't be sure of anything by way of authority. If something was, unbeknownst to us, not done properly somewhere up the chain, than you aren't baptized, I'm not baptized, our ordinations are nullified, and none of us are really sealed. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, pogi said:

I read a KSL article of that story. The reason explained raised some questions for me for my Catholic and trinitarian friends.  Here is the explanation:

 "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,"
 

First, is this tue in Catholicism that it is perceived as Christ who baptizes?  In Mormonism it is the priesthood holder who baptizes under the authority of Christ.

Second, my understanding of the trinity is that God is actually 3 distinct persons, and the baptismal prayer is actually performed in the names of all 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holly Ghost/Spirit).  Given this fact, wouldn’t it be correct to say “we baptize you...) given that the ordinance is done in the names of 3 distinct persons?

Third, shouldnt the baptizer say “he baptizes you...” rather than “I...”.  Unless it is believed that the baptizer actually becomes Christ in some form of transubstantiation... 

I remember on my mission a member of the ward baptized an investigator we taught in a river by his house.  We later were teaching his adult son about baptism and somehow the issue of raising the right arm to the square was brought up and the non-member son who attended his father’s baptism said that his father needs to be re-baptizes then.  We all kind of blew him off but he insisted that it was done wrong.  He actually took a picture of the baptism and brought it to us as proof, sure enough this member had his left hand raised to the square and we missed it as witnesses.  The son and father were both baptized and rebaptized correctly. 

I need to improve at the multi-quote thing. I'll do my best, though:

All three of your questions come down to the notion of in persona Christi. In the Catholic Church, the person performing a baptism--usually a priest--is in persona Christi. This teaching is articulated in paragraph 1548 of the Catechism:

Quote

 

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.

 

The essential rite of the sacrament of baptism is also articulated in the Catechism. The link to the Diocese of Phoenix's materials that was shared looks good to me. 

I could say more on the Trinity, but want to observe that this forum is for general discussion of all things LDS. 

In that spirit, though, I'll ask about the "Witnesses" that others have referred to. Do LDS baptisms have people standing by to word-check, or otherwise make sure that a baptism is conducted with exactness?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

d to improve at the multi-quote thing. I'll do my best, though:

Put your cursor where you want to break, hit return twice.  If it doesn’t break (happens when break is in thr middle of a paragraph), put the cursor back at the break and hit return again.  There is an easier way I believe, but can’t remember it.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

that others have referred to. Do LDS baptisms have people standing by to word-check, or otherwise make sure that a baptism is conducted with exactness?

Two people watch to be sure that the words and form are right and that immersion is complete…a hand doesn’t raise above the water for example.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/women-can-serve-as-witnesses-for-baptisms-temple-sealings-first-presidency-announces?lang=eng

How it is supposed to be:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I need to improve at the multi-quote thing. I'll do my best, though:

All three of your questions come down to the notion of in persona Christi. In the Catholic Church, the person performing a baptism--usually a priest--is in persona Christi. This teaching is articulated in paragraph 1548 of the Catechism:

The essential rite of the sacrament of baptism is also articulated in the Catechism. The link to the Diocese of Phoenix's materials that was shared looks good to me. 

I could say more on the Trinity, but want to observe that this forum is for general discussion of all things LDS. 

In that spirit, though, I'll ask about the "Witnesses" that others have referred to. Do LDS baptisms have people standing by to word-check, or otherwise make sure that a baptism is conducted with exactness?

In the second link that Cal provided (after clicking on the Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings link), you can watch a very short video at section 18.7.7 to see how we baptize and what the witnesses do.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
15 hours ago, pogi said:

Second, my understanding of the trinity is that God is actually 3 distinct persons, and the baptismal prayer is actually performed in the names of all 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holly Ghost/Spirit).  Given this fact, wouldn’t it be correct to say “we baptize you...) given that the ordinance is done in the names of 3 distinct persons?

This issue has appeared in other parishes, too. It's a post-Vatican II "we're reforming the Church" thing. The problem in the other parishes was that the priest was using "we" not to refer to God, but to refer to the congregation (as this priest was doing). The community of believers was baptizing through the priest instead of Christ through the priest. That is a HUGE doctrinal problem. See how it teaches the priesthood of all believers? I mentioned this in another thread, but a very important idea in Catholicism is "lex orandi lex credendi" = the law of prayer is the law of belief. The way we pray and worship teaches us what to believe. Mess with the worship and you mess with belief.

In the case of the other parishes, the priest was actively and intentionally undermining the traditional Catholic understanding of baptism and priesthood. He was not intending to do what the Church intends, so the baptism were invalid on two fronts: wrong intention and wrong formula (the words). It appears that this priest was intentionally doing this, though.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m curious how he could make the same mistake for thousands of baptisms and never be corrected. 

Some guesses: the congregation didn't notice, didn't realize the problem, or thought it was cool that we were becoming more "inclusive" or some such thing. Vatican II has caused lots of problems in the Catholic Church. People took some of the vague ideas of the Council and ran with them, turning them into things that are actively non-Catholic, such as this instance.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-andres-arango-baptisms-invalid-phoenix-church/

I didn’t know other churches took the exact wording of ordinances so seriously. The reasons given in the article interest me. What does this mean for anyone he baptized incorrectly who has since passed away or for those who take Communion? Since it so imperative to say the prayer correctly, are there no witnesses who would correct such an error at a Catholic baptism?
 
We LDS also require exact ordinance words, but because of the mandatory presence of witness we are usually able to avoid situations like this. One brother said in church last Sunday that when he was blessing the sacrament as a priest he once had to repeat the prayer 16 times. I’ve never heard anything that extreme, but I have heard it repeated three or four times. That probably is not a reason for an LDS priest to resign.

Comments? Why do you think precise wording for ordinances is required?

I've been watching this with interest. I don't think precise wording for ordinances IS required and this illustrates the problem with expecting/requiring human perfection in the way ordinances are administered. It is bound to turn out badly for some peoplel

12 hours ago, rongo said:

Doesn't the Catholic Church's (and ours as well) decision stemming from the Donatist schism come into play here? (page 19, footnote 40)?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1661&context=msr

Improper wording on an ordinance can't invalidate all ordinances one performs, or we literally can't be sure of anything by way of authority. If something was, unbeknownst to us, not done properly somewhere up the chain, than you aren't baptized, I'm not baptized, our ordinations are nullified, and none of us are really sealed. 

It really is interesting isn't it? This is why I believe the intention of the heart is important. Will God nullify a person's ordinance when they entered into it willingly and in good faith? Nah.

Like you mentioned, that would create lots and lots of other problems...BUT that philosophy does show how the LDS teaching about the apostacy of the catholic church and the need for a restoration might also be an unfair characterization.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've been watching this with interest. I don't think precise wording for ordinances IS required and this illustrates the problem with expecting/requiring human perfection in the way ordinances are administered. It is bound to turn out badly for some people.

It really is interesting isn't it? This is why I believe the intention of the heart is important. Will God nullify a person's ordinance when they entered into it willingly and in good faith? Nah.

Like you mentioned, that would create lots and lots of other problems...BUT that philosophy does show how the LDS teaching about the apostacy of the catholic church and the need for a restoration might also be an unfair characterization.

Given the very stark changes to the temple, I don't criticize things like baptism by sprinkling. We've had very big changes to the physical ordinances in favor of "symbolic only," which is the change from immersion to sprinkling. It's the authority that is all-important. If the authority is there, then the ordinances are valid, even when they undergo radical changes. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Still valid. The fact that they do not believe we currently have a pope does not affect their intention when it comes to baptism.

That means im stuck with you guys?   I was mentally ill at the time, no way out?  Seriously, I am having buyers remorse considering what their side here stateside is pulling.  I've come out more, my politics are pretty leftist and well, I am just disgusted by them in general here.  You're cool, so is Rory but in general?  Most of your suburbanite variety i've seen are racist homophobic jerks who make me despise the religion more by the day.  

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...