Tag Archives: Bishop Olmsted

valid baptism

#1 BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Leave a comment

#1 BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

Q1 In the Acts of the Apostles, thousands of baptisms are described.  At no time does the sacred text indicate what words (if any) were used to administer the rite.  Must we then doubt the validity of these baptisms (as the CDF proposes)? 

 

A1 By no means. The CDF cannot responsibly make a ruling that has the effect of invalidating the baptisms described in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

Q2 In the Acts of the Apostles, baptism was being administered by immersion in water.  The repeated use of the Greek term, baptizein, means “to immerse in water.”  What does this illustrate?

A2 This demonstrates that, in the primitive church, immersion in water was the normative mode of administrating baptism.   Today, however, we have become accustomed to forget this because 98% of Catholic baptisms involve pouring small amounts of water over the head.   Baptist and Orthodox Churches, for example, have maintained this requirement even today.  That is why it is not uncommon to see YouTube sites that argue that their faith is more authentic because they are actual in harmony with what the primitive church practiced.  Chick here, to see an example of this.

Q3 When did the early churches begin to baptize without full immersion in water?

A3. There is no evidence of this in the New Testament texts.  In the Didache, however, we find the first evidence that there were valid baptisms without full immersion.   Here is how the text reads:

7:1       (And) concerning baptism, bäptize thus:

            Having said all these things beforehand,

            ïmmerse in the name of the Father

                             and of the Son

                             and of the holy Spirit

            in flowing water‑‑

7:2       [1] if, on_the_other_hand, you should not have flowing water,

                 immerse in other water [that is available];

            [2] (and) if you are not able in cold,

                 [immerse] in warm [water];

7:3       [3] (and) if you should not have either,

                 pour out water onto the head three times

                        in the name of [the] Father

                                    and [the] Son

                                    and [the] holy Spirit.

The Didache puts forward the general rule that the immersion should take place “in living water” (en hydati zônti)–an expression that means  “in flowing/moving water.”  The preference for flowing water most probably hearkens back to an early period when natural rivers were used for baptizing.  Recall that John the Baptist made use of the Jordan River for his baptisms (Matt 3:6 and par.).

Q4 Do the Gospels then recognize that Jesus himself was baptized with full immersion?

A4 Absolutely!  There can be no doubt of this.

Immersion baptism today in living water

Q5 Does the Catholic Church allow baptisms by immersion?

A5 It not only allows them, it encourages them as the preferred form for administering baptism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the triple immersion in water “as the most expressive way” to perform a baptism:

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.

The last line makes reference to the Didache.

Q6 What do we learn about early baptisms from the Didache?

A6 When read as a whole, the overriding norm was to give preference to “living” water (Did. 7:1)‑-flowing and cold in natural rivers.  When this was lacking, then non-flowing cold water (Did. 7:2)‑-as in a pond or lake‑-was permitted.  Such cold water had the natural temperature of “living” water but was inferior since it was not flowing (Niederwimmer 1998:127).  Finally, when cold water was lacking, warm water was permitted.  Vööbus surmises that “warm water” refers to “the kind to be found in cisterns, pools and reservoirs” exposed to the Mediterranean sun (Vööbus 1968:24). 

If none of these kinds of water were available, then it was permitted to pour water over the head of the one being baptized.   One can imagine that three ceramic jars filled with water were used.  Pouring “three times” was by way of insuring a complete soaking.  Parts of the body still dry would become the natural target of the second and third jars of water.  Dousing the person in water would have been a near equivalent to immersion.

Q7 When was the Didache composed?  And by whom?

A7 The Didache bears the title, The Training of the Twelve Apostles.  Based on the content of this document, however, we can be certain that the twelve apostles did not actually write this text.  However, those who did use the Didache regarded it as  containing the way of training used by the twelve apostles.  Scholars are not in agreement as to the date when this text was composed.  Since I am a specialist in this text, I have concluded, on the basis of internal evidence, that the Didache was composed between 50 and 70 CE.  Not everyone agrees with me, however.  The majority place the time of composition late in the first century.

Q8 Does the Didache use the formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

A8 No, it does not.   In fact, however, the Didache presents us with very different words that were to be recited prior to the baptism.  These words summarize the intensive training that was given prior to the baptism.  It takes about ten minutes to recite this summary of “the Way of Life” (Did 1:1-4:14). Then the candidate was warned to keep far away from “the Way of Death”  which also gets spelled out in clear details (Did 5:1).  It takes a little more than one minute to recite this.   

Q8 Does the decision of the CDF and of Bishop O to declare all baptisms that do not use the standard formula as invalid run into some trouble here?

A8 Assuredly.  By affirming that only one formula must be used, the CDF not only invalidates early baptisms reported in the Acts of the Apostles, it invalidates all other baptisms (as in the Didache) where this one formula is not used.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

By presenting the usual form used in the Latin Church next to the usual form used in the Eastern Liturgies, the intent of the Catechism is to demonstrate that valid baptisms have been celebrated using two different forms.  This has the effect of demonstrating that the inability to honor the form used in the Catholic Easter Liturgies has the effect of calling into question the clear intention of the Catholic Church to honor various formulations of the words used.  In 1999, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches agreed to  honor the legitimacy of their respective rites:

The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery.

This agreement is very important.  There is one common teaching and one baptism even when the rites used for administrating baptism are not uniform.  This is what the CDF and Bishop Olmsted should have said: “The Catholic Church has always acknowledged a legitimate diversity in the words used to administer baptism.  Hence, the variation used by Fr. R can be understood as valid even when it deviated from the usual sacramental form used by Catholics.”

Q9 Is there any reason to believe that the Catholic Church always and everywhere administered baptisms using the formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father . . .”?

A9 None whatsoever.  No where in the Christian Scriptures does one find “the exact words” that must be used in every valid baptism.  If there were such words and there was also an absolute command to use these and no other words, then the CDF would have made its point. 

Even when it comes to the gestures and words used by Jesus at the Last Supper, each of the three Synoptic Gospels has a variant telling.  Here again, we would have to insist that “absolute uniformity” is not requirement for a valid Eucharist.  The Didache, for example, offers us a very rich Eucharist without needing to repeat what Jesus did.  John’s Gospel, in like fashion, presents us with Jesus washing the feet of his disciples as a symbolic metaphor of the hidden message of the Last Supper. 

Relative to the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew provides one variation; Luke provides another; and the Didache provides a third variant.  No one in the church sought to remove these variants and to mandate a single formulation to be used to edit out of existence the variants.

When I was attending Holy Cross Grade School in Euclid, Ohio, as an impressionable youth, Sister Margaret told us children that the Our Father printed in our Catechism was the only valid version that we, as Catholics, were permitted to use.  More especially, Sister Margaret told us that the Protestant version was an “invalid prayer” and should “never be used.”   The implication here was that God heard our prayers because they were approved.   Protestants, on the other hand, used unapproved versions of the Our Father and it was very unlikely that God would smile upon them when this did so.

If you go to the internet, you will find some Christians saying that “God gives us no warrant for infant baptism.” or “Only full immersion baptisms are valid.”  Those who do these things are misled and are misleading.  They are another version of Sister Margaret who wanted us children to take pride in our version of the Our Father and to despise anyone who uses a variation.

Q10 But is that not what the CDF is doing today–namely trying to impose on all Catholics one version while, at the same time, invalidating all variations?

A10 Some might think so.  In any case, to the degree that the CDF is doing what Sister Margaret did when I was in the fifth grade, they are to be opposed “in the name of Jesus.” 

 

 

 

change in the Church, sins of our fathers, valid baptism

Invalid Baptisms?—How Bishop Olmsted Made a Mountain out of a Molehill

9 Comments

On 14 January 2022, Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, alerted all the faithful regarding a matter of grave importance.  In his own words:

“It is with sincere pastoral concern that I inform the faithful that baptisms performed by Reverend Arango, a priest of the Diocese of Phoenix, are invalid. This determination was made after careful study by diocesan officials and through consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [abbr: CDF] in Rome.”

Father Arango acknowledged to his bishop that, for the past fifteen years, he had been performing baptisms in four different parishes using the words, “We baptize you in the name of the Father. . . .”  Since the official rites of the Roman Catholic Church indicate that baptism is administered using the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Bishop Olmsted judged that the use of “we” instead of “I” had the effect of invalidating thousands of baptisms.

Are we really obliged to believe that all of Father Arango’s baptisms were invalid?  Bishop Olmsted says,

“Unfortunately, we have no choice but to repair the mess made by Father Arango.”

The CDF, in an official ruling, agreed with the Bishop, “Without the right words, the Sacrament is invalid.”

Let’s step back for a moment and examine this case more closely:

#1 BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the Acts of the Apostles, thousands of baptisms are described.  At no time does the sacred text indicate what words (if any) were used to administer the rite.  Must we then doubt the validity of these baptisms (as the CDF proposes)?  Hardly.  At this historic time, baptism was being administered by immersion in water.  The repeated use of the Greek term, βαπτίζειν (baptizein), means “to immerse in water.” The only requirement for baptism was the conversion of heart.  In a typical case Peter says: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13; Gal 3:27).

Matthew alone reads, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19).  Vööbus points out, however, that Eusebius (d. 340) cites the great commission of Matthew more than two dozen times as “teach all nations in my name” (1968:36).  It is quite probable, consequently, that Eusebius’ text of Matthew’s Gospel did not have a trinitarian formula and that this was later edited into copies of Matthew’s Gospel.  All in all, most scholars are in agreement that baptism “in the name of Jesus” was the earliest norm and that this norm gradually shifted toward baptism “in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Did 7:3) in the early second century.

Moreover, theologians generally agree that Matt 28:19 gives us a rubric without in any way implying that these are “the words that must be recited to make the immersion a valid baptism.”  No one in this period imagined that, at every baptism, divine grace does not flow unless “the required words” were said.  The judgment of the CDF, “Without the right words, the Sacrament is invalid,” is thus a ruling that finds no foundation whatsoever within early church practice.   [For more details, click here.]

#2 ECUMENICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite, immersion or submersion is used, and the formula is:

“The servant of God, [insert name], is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

The Eastern Churches acknowledge the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms even though they do not require full immersion or their normative words.  Roman Catholics likewise acknowledges the baptismal traditions of the Eastern Churches.  These accords  recognized that there is essentially only “one baptism” even while there is a “legitimate diversity” in how these baptisms are administered.  Is the CDF aware that insistance upon one form of baptism might effectively undercuts the “mutual recognitions” made with the Eastern Churches?   [Click here for more details.]

#3 LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS

Dr. Vincent Ryan Ruggiero makes this linguistic observation:

The plural form “we” includes the singular “I”; in fact, it is impossible to use “we” in a way that excludes “I.”

If Bishop Olmsted had known this, would he have pounced upon Fr. Arango the way he did?  Did Bishop Olmsted destroy the reputation of Fr. Arango unjustly?  Did he grievously error in making a mountain out of a molehill?  Yes and yes.

Judith Hann assists us here in making a careful study of how Thomas Aquinas regards situations in which the minister uses alternate words.  This study was published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Ecclesiastical Law Society in 2021.  Without going into the details, here are the conclusions that Hann brings to us:

Aquinas . . . does not adhere to a radical literalism with regard to sacramental formulas. Instead he refers to the intention [of the minister] to do what the Church does and to the meaningfulness of the sacramental act for those who participate in it. In doing so, he proves that his understanding of sacramental speech is less that of spells with a magical automatism and more that of communication. Understanding sacramental speech as communication, as acts of conveying sacramental meaning to the community, demands a greater tolerance with regard to wording.  (Source)

What does this say regarding the “radical literalism” being proposed by the CDF?  Two points: (1) The CDF judged the minister using “We beptize you . . .” too harshly.  These words, in and of themselves, do not clearly reveal an intention to deviate from what the Church intends by the rite; and (2) The CDF appeals to Aquinas, but, in so doing, the CDF mistakenly assumes that Aquinas affirms the “radical literalism” that the CDF wants to impose on all ministers of baptism.

#4 ECCLESIA SUPPLET

When I was taking my first course on the Sacraments some sixty years ago, it was pointed out that the “intention” of the minister decides the outcome.  Thus, if in case of an emergency, a young mother baptizes her infant son who has turned blue and has stopped breathing, and she uses the words, “I baptize you in the name of God and of Jesus,” this suffices as a valid baptism.  How so?  Because she intends to do what the Church has done, namely, to baptize her son.  The Church tacitly supplies what is missing.  This principle is called Ecclesia supplet, which in Latin means “the Church supplies.”  If Bishop Olmsted had remembered his first course in Sacraments, might he not have used this principle to dispel any fear that the case of Fr. Arango involved any invalid baptisms.  Bishop Olmsted declares,

“I do not believe Fr. Andres [Arango] had any intentions to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments.”

That’s all that is needed.  Ecclesia supplet. All of the baptisms of Fr. Arango are valid.  There is no mess to clean up.  That’s the good news for everyone involved!  But the Bishop is unable to see this.

#5 PASTORAL CONSIDERATIONS

As things now stand, a grave danger is about to erupt.  An overly zealous and marginally incompetent bishop has set the wheels going in the direction of finding those who are the victims of “invalid baptisms” and making arrangements to have them repeat their baptism.  Then they will, in most instances, have to repeat their confirmations and marriages as well.  At this point, only one priest has his reputation ruined.  I would estimate that once Catholics come to understand that they too might be invalidly baptized, then more priests will be called on the carpet.  More reputations will be shattered.  Meanwhile, overworked priests will be required to give time and attention to thousands of Catholics who fear that their baptisms were invalid.  Many more thousands will come forward and ask to be conditionally rebaptized “in order to give themselves peace of mind that their spiritual welfare is secure.”

Meanwhile, Fr. Matthew Hood in the Archdiocese of Detroit has admitted that he discovered, upon seeing a family video of his baptism, that his own baptism was invalid.  So he was rebaptized, reconfirmed, reordained.  Now he is anxious because he is aware of the fact that he administered hundreds of Sacraments without recognizing that most of them were “invalid” because he himself was “invalidly” ordained to begin with.  Yipes!  So here is another overly zealous and marginally incompetent priest who is spreading uncertainty and fear.  How many more will come after him?  [Click here for further details and discussion regarding Fr. Hood.]

Parce Domine!  [Spare us, O Lord!]  Someone in authority needs to come forward soon and expose the false judgment of the CDF and the incompetent pastoral solution championed by Bishop Olmsted.  The faithful need to be reeducated as to why ALL THEIR BAPTISMS WERE VALID ALL ALONG.  Fr. Arango can then be reinstated.  He can undertake the new task of wiping away the tears of all those Catholics who were horrified by the false alarm and the sleepless nights.  The mountain can finally be seen again as just a molehill.

Peace and joy in the Love of our Lord,

Aaron Milavec

PS: Further analysis of wooden repetition and the theology of baptism.