Nothing Sums Up the Essential Nonsense of Religion Better Than This

[Secret Alias]

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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-p ... ix-church/

[perseusomega9]

He messed up the magic words, those poor sinners in hell.

So they going to re-baptize or will the church use economia once again to get out of a legalistic spot?

[schillingklaus]

I vs We does not make much of a difference, as originaklly the candidate was the subject of the sentence,, which was accordingly in a passive or medial voice with no agent specified. The latter is especially the case in the fourth tractated of the Corpus Hermeticum.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
We should better consult the Hammer of Witches to see whether Satan had a hand in this business.

[Paul the Uncertain]

It's not the first headline screw-up based on this issue.

In Detroit, a priest discovered from an old video that his own baptism had been invalidly perfomed for the same reason (we not I). Therefore, his ordination as a priest was invalid. Therefore many of the sacraments he performed were invalid (but not baptisms which don't require a priest).

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... nsequences

[davidmartin]

i doubt this is true, the religious approach is to support those which are on board and in agreement with themselves and if there is some problem it is made to disappear pretty quickly and become a non-issue. the real points of debate are not the ones of religious legalism, but they are the greater questions. it is the essential nonsense of religious legalism that is the subject of this post which is admitted by almost everyone but the greater questions remain just as pertinent as they ever did. in essence the supporters and detractors of this legalism are no better than each other - to dismiss condescendingly is the same as to require allegiance to a dogma

[Paul the Uncertain]

i doubt this is true, the religious approach is to support those which are on board and in agreement with themselves and if there is some problem it is made to disappear pretty quickly and become a non-issue.

It is unusual, I think. The Detroit case was about 18 months ago, soon after the Vatican "liturgical note" was issued. Supposedly, the Archbishop inquired whether Corporate really meant that do-overs were necessary, and Corporate said yes, that's what was meant.

Coverage in America (the Jesuit magazine) is a big deal in the Catholic community of America (the country). Smart money said they'd fix it quietly (e.g., treat the wording as a rule, with discipline falling on any non-complying officiant rather than on the customer). Apparently, smart money was wrong.

[Irish1975]

When and how did "I baptize" become normative? Matthew 28 just says "go forth...baptizing them..."

One of many ironies in this little farce is that the Catholic Church's theology of baptism is entirely founded on the concept of "we" as opposed to "I." The Holy Spirit, Sacraments, Magisterium, etc. were given as a common traditio by Christ to the 12 Apostles. There is no individual believer or individual priest who baptizes apart from the One True Church's authority. Not that "I baptize" couldn't also be acceptable within this framework, but I'm a little surprised that they would despair over the "invalidity" of a formula that ought to be perfectly in line with their theology.

[Secret Alias]

I get that you could argue that the symbolism/mysticism in religion could have personal meaning for people and even help them overcome adversity etc. But what always gets me is the notion of 'orthodoxy' - that yes the experience had meaning for the people that underwent baptism OH BUT NOW we have to erase it and start over again because it contradicted a rule.

[lsayre]

The Pauline conception of "by grace are you saved through faith" doesn't seem to involve or require the ritual of baptism at all. Didn't Paul even boast that he had baptized no one sans for a couple of exceptions?