Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix said baptisms performed by a priest during years of ministry in the diocese are invalid, leading to the resignation of the clergyman Feb. 1.
In a Jan. 14 letter to the diocese, Bishop Olmsted said diocesan officials learned from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the baptisms were invalid because of the form used during the ritual by Father Andres Arango.
“Specifically, it was reported to me that Father Andres used the formula ‘We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The key phrase in question is the use of ‘We baptize’ in place of ‘I baptize,'” Bishop Olmsted wrote.
“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 sacrament, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” the bishop’s letter said.
The use of the improper form led Father Arango to resign as pastor of St. Gregory Parish in Phoenix. Bishop Olmsted said Father Arango remains a priest in good standing in the diocese and that he would be helping the diocese identify and contact people whose baptisms are invalid.
Father Arango became pastor of St. Gregory Church in April 2017 after leaving the Congregation of Jesus and Mary, commonly referred to as the Eudists. Prior to his appointment as pastor, he was parish administrator at the church beginning in July 2015.
Diocesan officials did not disclose how many people are affected by the discovery.
Bishop Olmsted wrote that church officials are working to identify as many as people as possible to inform them how to receive a valid baptism.
Father Arango has served in the Phoenix Diocese since September 2005. As a Eudist priest, he was pastor of St. Jerome Parish in Phoenix from September 2005 to February 2013, and parochial vicar at St. Anne Parish in Gilbert, Arizona, from March 2013 to June 2015 before being assigned to St. Gregory Parish.
An a Eudist priest, Father Arango also was director of the Newman Center at San Diego State University from 2001 to 2005. Earlier he was pastor of a parish (1998-2000), taught at a university (1995-2000) and served as seminary director (unknown years) in the Diocese of São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.
The Phoenix Diocese established a page on its website, www.dphx.org/valid-baptism, that explains church teaching on baptism. It includes a long list of questions covering the importance of baptism, obtaining baptismal records from a parish, why the form used in baptism matters, whether the church is being legalistic about the situation, and the reception of holy Communion.
Baptism is a sacrament of initiation and in some cases, the diocese said, the reception of confirmation, marriage and holy orders may be invalid. If so, people will be faced with arranging for valid reception of those sacraments after baptism, the diocese said.
The reception of first holy Communion, or subsequent reception of the Eucharist, however, is not affected, the diocese said, “as you can only have one first holy Communion.”
“If you have received the Eucharist, even when unbaptized, you have received holy Communion,” said the response to one question on the webpage.
However, the diocese advised people whose baptism is invalid to not receive Communion until they can arrange for a valid baptism.
Father Arango, in announcing that he was resigning in a letter posted on the diocesan website, expressed that “I deeply regret my error and how this has affected numerous people” where he has served.
“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 health those affected,” Father Arango wrote.
In June 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a doctrinal note discussing the valid reception of baptism. It said that substituting “We” for “I” in the sacramental formula invalidates the sacrament.
The above comes from a Feb. 4 story in the National Catholic Reporter.
In all those years, not a single person — parent, sponsor, catechist, other priest, concerned layman observing the baptisms — not a single person objected or made the matter known? What poorly educated and indifferent Catholics the church has. Now there is a decades-long mess to clear up.
This affects the validity of Confirmations and marriages and ordinations of the people who were invalidly baptized too.
What a mess.
Remember it’s all about unity and community now…..not surprised this happened.
Some priests contributed to this by having parishioners place hands outstretched in the air to bless people right along with him for birthdays, etc. Other priests told me only priests should do that kind of blessing. I fold my hands and pray with the priest as he alone blesses the people. Only priests, and sometimes deacons, can bless sacred objects. Fathers are the priests of their own household and should bless their children and their home with holy water blessed by a parish priest, and their meals when together, otherwise the mother can do such blessings. There is a hierarchy.
Correction to second line: “right along with them”
That type of lack of following the rubrics and making up ones own words and rules is what is confusing to people. with one priest telling you do it one way, and the other telling you that is wrong and to do it just the opposite. .
That practice is very controversial. I am very uncomfortable with it.
It is not the same as a priest’s blessing.
Fathers are not priests of their own household even though they can bless their children.
There are different types of blessings:
Constitutive. These permanently bring about the dedication of a person or object in the service of the Church. For example the blessing of an altar.
Invocative. These ask God for help to those who are in need or those who will use certain objects.
Who is the proper person to bless depends on the type of blessing. Objects for general use in a parish or diocese are normally blessed by the bishop. For example, the dedication of an altar, the blessing of the oils on Holy Thursday.
Blessings that are more limited, such as religious objects, homes, etc. are normally carried out by a priest or deacon. Blessing for the life of a family are done by parents. For example, the blessing before a meal, the blessing of children.
Making the sing of the cross over a person would normally only be done by a deacon, priest or bishop. But a lay person can use the formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit if you wish. Normally it would be a parent, in view of their authority over their children, who would bless a child, not a child their parents
https://library.sydneycatholic.org/library/2012/ask-a-priest-can-lay-people-give-blessings-103848/#:~:text=Blessing%20for%20the%20life%20of,Holy%20Spirit%20if%20you%20wish.
You can get a copy of Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers.
I agree, but I do not get the space to explain in detail. Some might get more space because they are clergy or theologians. When I said the father (husband) is priest of his household, I meant he is the head as St. Paul taught. It does not mean a wife has to follow everything he tells her to do. We are to obey except in sin. That can be tricky as certain things should be decided mutually.
I had a Catholic Book of Household blessings, but mine did not distinguish enough between priestly and lay blessings.
It’s the rigidity of the wording that makes the sacrament valid, hear that Pope Francis. Words matter.
Rigid, so what form of a Sacrament has Pope Francis not used or advocated?
Blessedly, the Church keeps good records so they should be able to contact everyone.
Pray for any who have died thinking they were baptized. I believe the baptism of desire would then apply.
good news! when they are finally baptized for real all their sins will be wiped away
Praise to the Lord!
So, does the priest have to pick up the phone and say, “We didn’t baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Since, as the article says, it is Christ and him alone who presides at all the sacraments, and since he comes from the East, doesn’t that mean Christ.faces the people at Mass?
I think the original pre-Conciliar Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation– (as well as the other five Sacraments)– are done much better. They are also more complete. And always exact. The post-Conciliar forms leave out a lot of things. “(Child’s name) ego te baptizo…” is always exact, no goofy “hippie” fooling around with Latin language and dogma. Sacraments all must be exact in form, or they are useless.
The reformed liturgy of baptism is also exact. This priest took unauthorized liberties with the baptismal formula. The problem was with the priest, not the reformed liturgy.
Exactly. The problem is not the liturgy; the problem is not the Ordinary Form, but the priest who didn’t follow exactly the words of baptism.
The post-Conciliar forms of our Sacraments are in the vernacular languages, shorter, to-the-point, modernized, casual, simplified, and they leave out lots of things. I do not like to attend the post-Conciliar Confirmations, particularly– nearly unrecognizable.
There is nothing wrong with the sacraments of the Church offered in the vernacular, because the vernacular has been allowed by the authority of the Church using the translation authorized by the Church. And there is nothing wrong with shorter nor with being simplified. The Church has left nothing out of substance from any of the sacraments of the Church. What the Church may have left out are accretions in the rite that have grown over the centuries, the purpose for which have been lost in the mist of time. The Church, people, has every authority to alter the rituals without altering the substance. That’s what the Church did exactly.
Just think about it: the same ecclesiastical authority that promulgated the pre-conciliar rites is the same ecclesiastical authority that has promulgated the post-conciliar ones. The personages are of course different (with the passage of centuries), but it’s the same ecclesiastical authority.
The Magisterium has the right to change certain things in the liturgy, but most of what was done in the older rite is not lost in history. There are writings of early church fathers and writings about past liturgical changes.
My Saint Andrew Daily Missal goes into great detail as to why the priest does certain things, their meaning and the history of the many feasts — quoting past popes and saints. While we have to take into consideration newer discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are older books that are accurate too.
There is nothing wrong with the post-Conciliar Sacraments, and I never said that. Some good Catholics prefer the older forms of the Sacraments for their own very good reasons. As this post-Conciliar era is an experimental era, there are always some problems, because too many abuses usually arise, with experimental eras. And later, the Church must correct these problems. How long did it take for the abuses of the sacrament of Baptism to finally be noticed, of this one priest? I have seen many of these types of abuses, since the post-Conciliar era began. Abuses at Mass, though, have really been a terrible thing– but I think most bishops have ended severe abuses at post-Conciliar Masses.
No, “Love the,” you should be honest about what you had written above. It’s very clear what you wrote. Your words covey that there are things lacking and deficient in the post-conciliar rites.
jon, there are always going to be big changes, with new things, in any field, including religion. As a result, with changes to the Sacraments, for example, some things will be left out and some things will remain. Also, revisions of new things, with hoped-for improvements, will happen, as time goes along. Every Church scholar has their own opinion on the post-Conciliar changes with the Mass and Sacraments. The scholars discuss. write, and debate issues of this type all the time. And every Catholic is entitled to their own thoughts on this subject. In an era where everything is well-settled, then experimentation and errors are less likely to occur.
You don’t really get it, do you “Love the”? I am not talking about “every Church scholar”. I am not taking “what things are left out and what things will remain in the liturgy.” I am not taking about “experimentations.” None of that. I am talking about the kind of divisive and dissentful attitudes and comments such as yours which are the immediate cause for the Holy Father’s “Traditionis custodes.” People, if any of you still have doubts as to the necessity of the Pope’s motu propio, behold, I present to you “Love the’s” lamentable and horrific comments about the Ordinary Form.
Love the, it really depends on what thoughts you might be having as to whether you are “entitled” to your thoughts. Some thoughts can’t be helped. But you can reject them.
We are all supposed to be of one mind with Christ.
me, the “mind of Christ” has absolutely nothing to do with you.
Man, your pride….
Jesus loves me this I know
There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the sacraments of the Church in the Ordinary Form (that’s the post-conciliar form for you rad-trads out there). All of the sacraments of the Church (particularly in the Ordinary Form), offered validly, are effective in transmitting God’s graces. This attitude from “Love the” is precisely the kind of divisive, dissentful, and derogatory attitude (derogatory towards the sacraments) for which the Holy Father in his love for the unity of the Church has written “Traditionis custodes.” “Love the’s” attitude is distasteful and abhorrent. What the Church has provided in whatever valid form, God recognizes. God is more powerful than your rigidity and your need to be “always exact”. Such a divisive comment from “Love the.” It needs to be addressed.
Just to clarify further my words: one the hand, the priest indeed needs to say exactly the words as written in the rites so as not to invalidate the sacrament, but the words of the post-conciliar rituals need not be “always exact” to the wording of the pre-conciliar sacraments to be valid. That’s what I meant. The Church has every authority to modify the ritual without altering the substance of the sacrament. The Church has taken away. Besides, “Love the” is totally wrong in another aspect: In the Ordinary Form, the priest mentions the name of the child. The Church did not “fool around” with dogma in any of the rites of the post-conciliar rituals.
I mean, “The Church has taken nothing away of substance in modifying the rites.”
jon, the post-Conciliar era has been an experimental, new era, for the Church. Because of that situation, many priests have tried doing unorthodox things. Most abuses of the Mass and Sacraments eventually get found out, and are corrected by local bishops.
What “experimental, new era” are you talking about? There is nothing “experimental” about any of the rites and rituals of the Church. The issue here “Love the” is the liberties taken by certain people like this priest either from lack of training or misinformation. This veiled attack on the Ordinary Form and on Vatican II is most abhorrent.
After the Council ended, a new era started, that was innovative and “experimental.” The texts for the Mass and Sacraments, as well as the Divine Office, underwent great changes, with revisions, too. Many different new ideas were tried. The New Mass text that was written up did not follow “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” it turned out totally different. And there were lots of things also tried, on an experimental basis– some of them controversial, such as lay Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and Lectors, Communion in the hand, no kneeling, just standing or sitting during Mass, etc. Plus, removal of the Tabernacle from the main altar, removal of altar rails, etc. etc. Some of these controversial, experimental innovations have been retained, with also expanding women’s roles. Others have been rejected– many bishops have mandated placing the Tabernacle back onto the main altar, at the front of the church. Etc. And we now have the “Synod on Synodality;” many German bishops want married and gay “married” priests– it just goes on and on…
“Love the,” please, none of the things you mention, none, excuse your divisive and derogatory dissent. None of the things you mention invalidate any of the sacraments of the Church.
Of course, the Vatican II Mass and Sacraments are valid. How far can those errant German bishops push the Vatican, on married priests, women’s ordination, gay “marriage,” and ordination of “married” gays? I do not agree with any of this nonsense.
“Love the,” if I were you I’d worry less about German bishops and worry more about your own attitude, your divisiveness, your bias against the holy sacraments of the Church in the Ordinary Form, and your irresponsible comments which do nothing but potentially weaken the faith of Catholics who may read your irresponsible comments. Such irresponsible commentary as “Love the,” does a grave disservice to the ministry of the Church. Such commentary tears down, it does not build up the Body of Christ.
Surely, there is no way on earth, that the German bishops could possibly come up with altering two of our Sacraments– Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders– to include same-sex marriages and ordain women. Why can’t the German bishops see that this is an absolute impossibility?
Love the, the German bishops do support allowing priests to marry (which is possible). I have never seen anything that says that they support gay marriage for priests or for anyone else. Some support blessing gay couples.
You need to get caught up on the news! The German bishops recently loudly proclaimed that the Catholic Church is “out of date” on sexuality teachings, and must “update” their teachings to correspond to today’s sinful secular society. They believe in gay “marriage,” gays to become priests, a married priesthood– of both gay and normal men– and women’s ordination.
People, listen to yourselves: whatever the German bishops do is no justification for the kind of divisiveness that “Love the” has expressed, nor for denigrating any of the holy sacraments of the Church.
I think she is just a division of one. But even that hurts the Body of Christ.
No, “just one.” Lies and the cowardice, failing to stand up for Christ and His teachings, is what destroys the Body of Christ.
ughhh….say the black, do the red…it ain’t rocket science, Bro’s….
No priest (or deacon or bishop) should ever change the words of the sacraments. And, I say that as an Eastern Catholic, “where” our sacraments sometimes use slightly different words. We pray the prayers of the Church. We are not a do-it-yourself, make-it-up-as-you-go religion. If you ever hear a priest or deacon change the words of a sacrament, run the other way (and inform the pastor, bishop and persons involved). We live in a free country and we’re all free to start our own “churches,” if we want. But, Catholics should not attend the First Church of Father Fred (or Deacon Craig). We have the Faith that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles. We can’t “improve” on them. If a word of heresy passes my lips, please tell my pastor and bishop immediately. As the illustrious Apostle and evangelist Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:18) I realize that sounds strong, maybe even offensive to some, but, it’s true.
Exactly, Deacon Anderson. The people who died not knowing they were not properly baptized were baptized by the baptism of desire, I believe though, if they were living good Christian lives and not in mortal sin. It is necessary that the situation be remedied for those who are still alive as much as possible as I am sure you agree.
Priests and clergy need to stick to the rubrics. “Say the black, read the red,” as one poster repeated. “It is not that hard.” Don’t make up your own “stuff”.
I can just see Jesus saying “Nope, you can’t get in. The priest didn’t say the magic word, therefore you are damned for all eternity, even though you were too young to know what I or We even meant.” Of course we should find and correct the mistake, and not repeat it, but honestly, I doubt God cares a whole heck of a lot between the first person plural and the first person singular of the English language.
I guarantee you he cares about the definition of marriage and the moral use of the sexual faculty.
Perhaps. I guarantee he cares about how we care for the poor, the sick, whether we are peacemakers and good samaritans, since those are the things he preached about.
God definitely cares about marriage and the moral use of the his gift of sexuality.
He also cares how we care for the poor and sick, whether we are peacemakers and “good Samaritans” meaning that we help our neighbor.
He cares that we pray and how we work.
He cares how we are treated by others.
He cares.
1 Peter 5:7
My friend, no one is saying that. The point is the validity of the sacrament, not the salvation of the person. God does not damn all of the unbaptized. Are you familiar with baptism by desire and baptism by blood, for example(s)? Yet, baptism (by Christ and with faith in Christ) is the ordinary means of salvation. But, as the Catechism teaches, God is not bound by His sacraments. See Catechism #1257. Jesus commands baptism and the words do matter. He tells us, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19-20) We should all be more concerned about doing what the Lord commands us. And, since it is Christ Himself who ultimately administers the sacrament, through human instrumentality, the words used do matter. Baptism is not a “we” welcome you initiation into a merely human organization. It is a powerful act of Christ Himself. Bishop Olmsted is right in righting this wrong.
Thank you Deacon Anderson. Nobody is saying that, but it is pretty clearly implied. Salvation comes by way of initiation into the body of Christ, which comes via Baptism. I agree that God is not bound by his Sacraments, so why is the Bishop making such a big deal? It could have been handled with conditional baptisms at the time of the next sacrament of character: Confirmations and ordinations, rather than going around rebaptizing people. Going around telling people they’re original baptism didn’t count doesn’t seem like a good way of making disciples, at least not to me.
I agree He commanded us to baptize and make disciples in name of the Sacred Names of the Most Holy Trinity. He never said, baptize in MY name. He didn’t distinguish between the first person singular and the first person plural. In fact, his command was to a group of people, people who live in the plural. He actually never said that when you baptism, it is “I” who baptizes. It is, rather the Church, a communion of Saints, who baptizes in the name of the Sacred Names. Both the Church, and the Sacred Names, imply both a singular unity and a plural reality.
And why doesn’t ecclesia supplet? Well, that’s complicated and controversial as we see here: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/10/01/ecclesia-supplet-making-invalid-sacraments-valid/
The way of salvation is simple. He says, “Follow ME”. He doesn’t say, follow Canon Law.
“Your Fellow Catholic’s” answer is one that a poorly-catechized Catholic might give, or at least a baptized Catholic steeped in Protestantism. Of course it matters for validity whether the priest used “I” or “We” in the baptismal formula; it matters because the Church says it matters. It might even matter for salvation. For example, if the parish secretary calls, “Mr. Smith could you please come down to the Church on Sunday so that Father could conditionally baptize you; he didn’t use the right words years ago.” Out of obedience and love for God and His Church, Mr. Smith better show up on Sunday. But if Mr. Smith’s attitude is: “Why bother. Such things don’t matter to me. Why bother with such insignificant things like using ‘I’or ‘We.’ I am too busy”… then such an attitude could very well affect his salvation, even if Mr. Smith is known in the neighborhood as a generous helper of the poor and needy. Such generosity is nothing, as St. Paul said, without love (love for God as manifested in one’s love and obedience to the Church, and love of neighbor). You see people, the Church continues Christ’s ministry on earth. Christ and the Church are inseparable. What the Church solemnly decides, such as what Bishop Olmsted has decided in this case, has significance in heaven and in one’s salvation. Therefore, Christ indeed said, “Follow me.” But that entails following Him in obedience to the teachings, the laws, and traditions of His Church.
I’m sure Christ calls us to follow him in grammatical perfection.
It’s not grammatical perfection we’re following, Your Fellow Catholic, but rather we’re following Christ’s own admonition to follow his apostles and their successors, that is, the Church’s Magisterium. As Our Lord said to his Apostles and to those who will succeed them: “Whoever listens to you, listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; whoever rejects Me rejects the One Who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). Facetiousness is not the most appropriate response in this case, for then you’re no better than these rad-trans in here.
A couple of thoughts for the record. I never said the malformed baptisms were valid. That’s not for me to decide. I simple agreed with and elaborated upon the good Deacons comment that God is not bound by his Sacraments. And I am no better than anyone else including the rad-trads. But you have to admit that slavishly following Canon Law can sometimes get in the way of Gods grace, just as the Pharisees were told by Christ himself. Now…let’s all get back to the mission of making disciples, shall we?
“Your Fellow Catholic” is wrong on many counts. Firstly, he says “following Canon Law can sometimes get in the way of God’s grace.” False. Any Canon Lawyer will disagree vehemently with that. Canon Law is there as one of the pastoral applications of divine law, ecclesiastical law, natural law and others. Following the law of God (as Our Lord did meticulously) and of the Church is a sure sign of the transmission of God’s grace for us humans. For example, by erroneously saying “We baptize you,” the priest has irresponsibly communicated the falsehood that it is the Church, the community, that brings a person into God’s family. This is pastorally wrong. It is purely God’s love, gift, and initiative that we are brought into the Church.
Quick and honest question. If “we” mis communicates who is doing the baptism because we believe it is Christ who baptizes, doesn’t “I” mis communicate in the same way? Why not say “Christ baptizes you in the name of the Father” etc ?
Have you heard of the phrase “in persona Christi capitis”? In the Catholic Church, “YFC”, especially during the celebration of the sacraments, the legitimately anointed priest acts “in the person of Christ the Head”. The priest pronounces the words of institution during Mass “in the person of Christ” and he pronounces the words of baptism, “in the person of Christ.”
Going back to “Your Fellow Catholic’s” earlier comment: he is also wrong in this sense: God may not be bound by the sacraments (and by physical signs and gestures) but we human beings are. It is partly for the sake and assurance of the family, the friends, and the baptized that we follow precisely crucial sacramental signs, gestures, and words because they convey to us Divine grace. We human beings communicate through physical signs and words because they can communicate the truth and God’s grace. Altering the crucial words of the sacraments communicate false theology, false information, and whatever other falsehoods out there. No Divine grace can flow from falsehoods.
Because the priest, or other minister, is baptizing “in persona Christi”: in the person of Christ. The minister of baptism is merely the instrumental cause. The efficient cause is Christ: he is the primary actor using the minister of baptism as his instrument. That is why the “I” refers primarily to Christ, and only secondarily to the minister who is instrumentally performing the baptism. Christ baptizes through the secondary causality of the minister.
Interestingly, if a minister were to say the correct baptismal formula, “I baptize you…” while someone else performed the act of pouring water over an unbaptized person, it would be an invalid attempted baptism. The one who pronounces the baptismal formula must also be the one to pour water over the unbaptized person because Christ is working through the agency of that sole minister in both form and matter to effect the sacrament as a visible sign of the bestowal of invisible grace.
Jon thank you for your answers but many of the things you say were wrong in my answer I never actually wrote. Please be careful when interpreting what people say.
On the contrary, “YFC”, I interpreted nothing wrong in what you wrote which is very plain. You mean to mock mindfulness to crucial details of the celebration of the sacraments (calling it ‘grammatical perfection’). There is no use counter-accusing those who correct you with misinterpretation when what you had written is on the record. Futile.
Thirdly, going back to “YFC’s” earlier commentary, you will not be effective in making good disciples by your example of pooh-poohing the sacramental laws of the Church. This is because it is ultimately God who guarantees the effectiveness of whatever work we do for Him. Therefore, if you cannot be trusted by God over small things such as being mindful of every jot and tittle of His Church’s laws, why should He entrust you with greater things such as bringing another soul to Him?
If you are Catholic, God says to follow Canon Law.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is it’s Head.
Scripture says to baptize “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Not the Names.
233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Of the same Source, Sacred Tradition commands the words “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
If you are unsure of the meaning of Sacred Tradition (aka Apostolic Tradition) please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church starting at paragraph #75.
This is not the same as ecclesial tradition (always a topic here on CCD). See #83.
A slight correction to your statement “Sacred Tradition commands the words ‘I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'”: that formula is not as old as Sacred Tradition or the deposit of the Faith. Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) are validly baptized usually with the words, “The servant (or handmaid) of God, NAME, is baptized in the Name of … ” Those too are ancient words of the Church and we would never dare alter them (as if we were somehow “free” to do so). I just wouldn’t want any readers thinking Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) might not be validly baptized.
Thank you for that correction.
Such Orthodox baptisms have been recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church since the Council of Florence in 1439. (Source is NCR.)
Also, I think Sacred Tradition and the deposit of the Faith are two different things. The deposit of faith ended with the Apostles but Sacred Tradition did not.
77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”
Always open to correction.
I also want to elaborate on “God is not bound to His Sacraments.”
God has bound Himself to His Sacraments. When you receive a valid Sacrament you can have confidence that Jesus had done what the Sacrament intends.
But He can act outside of the Sacrament.
But we can never presume that He has.
A few years ago, there was a controversy when a little girl was given a host not made from wheat. The Sacrament was not valid. Many people rolled their eyes at the Catholic Church and felt like God in His Love would come to Her anyway. But we cannot presume that.
Bishop Olmsted is a very good, dedicated bishop. So is our excellent Abp. Cordileone. Wonderful to have a good bishop/archbishop for your diocese/archdiocese. If something goes wrong at your church– then, hopefully, you will receive good help. Also, as Pope Francis is aging, good bishops/archbishops can help, at the time this pontificate may end, and a new pope is elected, and keep things going smoothly.
For your information, “Love the”, Pope Francis is the perfect pontiff for the likes of you. He knows exactly what the radicals on the right need spiritually, and he’s willing and able to bring it to them. Just read “Traditionis custodes.” It’s the perfect antidote to the dissent and divisiveness of you lot. The sheep does not lead the shepherd, “Love the,” it’s the other way around. Francis, as the good shepherd, is leading the dissentful part of his flock to a safer spiritual pasture whether they like it or not. But many of them, like perhaps yourself, are too stubborn to follow.
jon, we all have a moral duty owed to Christ, to speak up against Evil, if one of our clerics does or says something wrong. Especially for the sake of our families, our children, and our grandchildren! This is not meanness, jon. You need to understand the difference between meanness and rightful criticism, and the duty we have, to speak up in rightful criticism, against evil. This requires courage, love and fidelity to Christ, and a sense of responsibility.
Love the…that is what we are trying to tell you. You need to be a lot more careful in what you say. The things you say are evil. Not everything and some of them may be true in a way, but the way you say it could cause scandal.
What a big laugh, jon! Go to Mass, try to lead a good life, try to improve how you treat your fellow Catholics and others.
The real issue here is how you and people like you treat the Holy Father. The issue here is how you treat the authority of the Church on liturgical matters.
I think it is a very wrong idea, to have Church clerics and nuns who openly advocate for gay marriage, gay married priests, pro-choice/abortion, women priests, and married priests, to be welcomed by the Vatican to participate in the Synod on Synodality.
In the National Catholic Register today, there is an article in which Church Canonists are questioning
the validity of recent guidelines on Traditiones Custodes. Also, in other Catholic news sources, there are many articles on top Church clerics, including Abp. Vigano, who openly question the validity of the Pope’s motu proprio. And there are lots of articles on the German bishops stating that Church teaching on sexuality is outdated and wrong. They favor gay marriage, gay married priests, women priests, and married priests. Cdl. Hollerich of Luxembourg, a key prelate of the Synod on Synodality, is preaching that Church teachings on sexuality are wrong, and outdated, and he favors gay marriage and the LGBT agenda. Cdl. Muller, former Prefect of the CDF, has publicly opposed Hollerich.
“Love the,” are you conceding the fact that you cannot name at least 20 bishops and cardinals who have openly questioned the canonicity of “Traditionis custodes”?
Notice that she said “recent guidelines on TC, not TC itself.
A document issued motu proprio has its legal effect, even if the reasons given for its issuance are found to be false or fraudulent, a fact which would normally render the document invalid. Its validity is based on its issuance by the pope by his own initiative, not upon the reasons alleged.
It’s desperation by trads, is all that it is. The TLM is being phased out. Vatican II called for reform of the liturgy. No going back to the TLM.
I like the way you call bishops without a see and bishops without even a role in a dicastery as top clerics. Bishops who issue missives from a hiding place. You probably even think that an auxiliary bishop in a tiny diocese who contradicts the Catechism is also a top cleric. Nice job.
“LifeSiteNews” today, has a good article all about Bp. Athanasius Schneider, who is publicly rejecting the Pope’s decision to support homosexuality. Bp. Schneider is encouraging all Catholics to show gays the beauty and holiness of a life vocation to Chastity and to Christ.
auxiliary bishop also publicly rebuked the Catechism on such issues.
The phrase “the Pope’s decision to support homosexuality” is poorly worded to the point of possibly being sinful.
Chastity is the way for everyone, every Catholic to be pleasing to the Lord.
The Pope and Vatican have openly accepted many who are pro-gay unions to the Synod on Synodality. Sr. Jeannie Grammick, whose pro-gay unions “New Ways Ministry” was previously condemned by the Vatican, has received warm praise from the pope. This is terribly wrong. Instead, the pro-gay union clerics and nuns should be given a strong rebuke by the pope and Vatican, and urged to change, and accept, teach, and live by Catholic teaching on sexuality. There are many leading German bishops who are also pro-gay unions, who publicly state that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are “wrong” and “out of date,” and state that they aim to change the Catechism.
The pope said the church cannot bless same-sex unions because God cannot bless what is sinful. What more do you want?
“What more do you want?” answer= stop this entire synodal nonsense and put the entire Church in Germany under interdict
Participate in the synodal process, please.
Love the…I understand that you have strong opinions on this but again…saying that the Pope has given warm praise to Jeannie Grammick could be mistaken to mean that he is supportive of New Ways Ministry in a way that he has not done.
You said that you use LifeSiteNews. That is a website which is very good on some things and not others. There is an anti-Francis bias there, I feel.
I am certainly not anti-Francis. And no, I read news stories from many different Catholic sources, but am much older, and have a completely different viewpoint than most of the Catholic journalists of today. Most of all,
I believe our pope and prelates have a tremendous responsibility to millions of Catholic families, worldwide. I think, for one thing, that Abp. Gomez needs to clean up the REC, I think Bp. McElroy, Cdl. Cupich, and many others need to clean up their ways– and I think the Pope and Vatican need to clean up their synods– to start off with. Responsibility for the millions of Catholic families, worldwide, is the most important thing. And why doesn’t the Vatican mandate a worldwide clean- up, of all their Catholic schools, universities, and seminaries, worldwide– for the sake of future generations being raised, today– right now? They owe that big responsibility to God, and to Catholic families and children– and grandchildren.
I agree with you that the Pope and prelates have a tremendous responsibility. To Catholic families, to Catholics, to Christians, to non-believers, to members and leaders of other religions, to the leaders and peoples of all the states and countries, to the unborn, to future generations (until the Lord comes.), to the dead, to the Church and to the the Lord Himself.
I do not know about the REC, now. Back in the time when Kenneth Fisher used to protest at it, there were some real problematic speakers, I felt. There may still be some. Most of the people I have seen who complain about it online, don’t even attend it.
You are being very vague about Bp. McElroy and Cardinal Cupich in terms of what ways they have that they need to clean up. I believe you live in neither diocese so you are probably going by online gossip. Remember, it is a sin both to gossip and to listen to gossip.
I am still learning about Synods. My understanding is that it is a meeting of the bishops of the world convoked to discuss a particular topic. The listening to everyone of the next Synod is unique.
Catholic schools have very serious responsibilities. Most of them take it seriously. But there are variations in quality and what is tolerated.
That is going to be no matter what. things get better. Things get worse. There is only so much that they can do each year. I would like to see the bishops make a list of questions that parents can ask their children to help ensure that what is necessary to know is being taught. And sometimes it is, but the child did not understand it or was zoned out from donut sugar at CCD class. Even attending a Newman list college does not guarantee much. There are very few religion requirements unless your major is Theology.
Keeping the Church Truthful is everyone’s responsibility. We all speak falsely sometimes, sometimes in error, sometimes in doubt. It is important to be accurate.
I am curious, if you were to speak to the Pope, Bishop McElroy and Cardinal Cupich and you have 60 seconds to tell them what they are doing wrong, what would you say?
It doesn’t matter what any commenters here may say, regarding my post of Feb. 9th at 9:11pm. Many of you fail to recognize great and serious dangers present in our Church today. This is a terrible thing for your children and grandchildren, whom you may bring to Mass and to religion classes. It is a big responsibility for our pope and clerics at the Vatican, to uphold Catholic teachings, and correctly teach the holy religion given to us by Jesus Christ. To welcome, praise, and accept those who promote gay sex unions, and to accept clerics and nuns who publicly preach that Church teachings on sexuality are “wrong” and “out of date,” and state their desire to change the Catechism– is a horrible thing. A mortal sin, a betrayal of Christ. Worst of all– it is a horrible thing, and a great danger, for our children and grandchildren.
Excuse me but “Love the” folks is sounding more and more like someone from a different planet.
I can’t speak for anyone else but I do see many ways that the Church is being tested. We have the Lord’s word that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
No one on this website is even discussing this but you. You are the one bringing this here. If you would stick to Catholic Truth, it would be better.
I understand that you are going to websites where you are being disturbed. Those websites will receive from the Lord what they deserve as we all will.
I do not think that you are aware of the part you are playing in the great and serous dangers present in the Church today.
This article was about baptism.
You are focused on things that the Bible says not to even talk about.
Sorry my post uploaded before I was done. You are misrepresenting the German bishops.
You need to read more carefully.
Your opinion is just as important in the Synod as those who formed the initiative in Germany.
It is important that you speak up for traditional Catholic morality and teachings, if you have not already.
If your opinion is something else, you get to voice that, too.
The Church is not a democracy. The Synod is the Church listening to anyone who will speak to Her, but that does not mean that they will change Catholic teaching because someone does not like it.
I hope you have or will participate in your diocesan listening sessions or surveys.
To demonstrate how disastrous the CDF’s and this local bishop’s handling of this situation has been, get a load of this op-ed by Republican strategist Matthew Dowd:
“As someone who was baptized (I think), served as an altar boy, and at one point in my teens considered entering the Catholic priesthood, this story strikes a particularly deep chord with me. About four years ago, I stopped attending Catholic services and now go to a wonderful Christ-centered interdenominational church in my community. As the Catholic Church sexual predator scandal continued (and indeed continues) to unfold, and with abortion continuing to take center stage at nearly every mass — with much less time, if any, devoted to urgent issues such as poverty, war and capital punishment — I had enough. I still consider myself Catholic, but this latest incident in Arizona re-emphasizes for me why the Catholic Church is in desperate need of fundamental institutional reform. Pope Francis has proven himself to be an empathetic and important leader; but one isn’t enough. The fact baptisms were declared invalid because of, essentially, a grammar dispute suggests a faith out of sync with the spirit and teachings of Jesus.”
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/what-catholic-church-s-arizona-baptism-rule-republican-leaders-share-n1289225?icid=msd_topgrid
“they all fled”…
Institutional reform= acceptance of sodomy, abortion, contraception and bow to ways of the world. The main reform the Church needs to the purging of gays from the ranks of the clergy.
Someone to pray for.
That guy is ignorant. Words matter. Strange that many of the same people who want to force others to recognize “preferred” pronouns and made-up “pronouns” think the Catholic Church insisting on “I” in the baptismal formula is stupid.
Yes, and yes!
I’m lost in the many comments.
Once we were lost, now we are found