Watch What You Say!


Now this is one of those stories that, in my opinion, “takes the cake.”

This article talks about an Arizona priest who has been baptizing infants for over 25 years — and has been using an “incorrect” word during the sacrament!

Oh the HORROR of it! Thousands of poor little babies were never sanctified because of this priest’s poor choice of words!

Apparently, when baptizing, a priest must say: “I baptize you …” whereas this careless priest said, “We baptize you …”!!!

Fortunately, all of the other sacraments this priest conferred were valid. (Phew!) However, because baptism is the “sacrament that grants access to all the others, a botched baptism could invalidate any subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, marriage and holy orders.”

The article reports that similar discoveries were made by the “lay faithful” in Detroit and Oklahoma City, so if you –or someone you know– happens to be one of the many that were affected, it may be necessary “to repeat some or all of those sacraments” after being “validly baptized.” 

Although I have my doubts the following needs to be shared, I wouldn’t want to be remiss in my responsibilities, so let me close by adding that the Arizona Parish is:

seeking help in identifying those in need of the sacraments and encouraging anyone who believes their own baptism was affected to call their parish for more information.

P.S. This was also shared in the article:

 (I)f a priest uses milk instead of wine during the Consecration of the Eucharist, the sacrament is not valid (because) the milk would not become the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Image by Jercy Rhea Senecio from Pixabay

45 thoughts on “Watch What You Say!

  1. All of the scandals emerging from that criminal enterprise, all the centuries of abuse and hypocrisy, and this is what they focus on. They systematically cover up the abuse of children, but have a conniption because some shaman didn’t say “bibbidi-bobbidi-boo” correctly. As if their all-powerful and benevolent god would condemn a baby to hell over a few magic words. Their whole sh*tshow can’t collapse fast enough, if you ask me.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Oh heaven’s to Betsy! Say it ain’t so! This means there COULD be some babies in limbo (if they got there before the Church changed their minds about it.

    Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in your life?

    Liked by 6 people

  3. The baptism is a big deal, huh?
    What about all the non-Catholic Christians? I bet they bust hell wide open. (Googly eyes)

    The Mormons also have a practice of baptizing the dead, by proxy as it were.

    The more extreme their practices, the more the ‘faithful’ like them. If it is too weird to be believed, it must be real.

    Go into the ministry, young man! There’s money to be made there.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Heck, Jim, they don’t even get the English version right. I had to actually learn all of the services, sacraments, all of it, in Latin. The English translations of the original texts were always bad and they’re STILL tinkering with them. I imagine that the translations into other languages are just as bad.

      Liked by 3 people

      • So many unlucky sinners, especially since some of those words dont have equal counterparts in English. What the heck is the all powerful Jesus to do about that?
        It’s amazing to me how little actual faith there is in faith.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. Uh… From what I was taught and have learned over the years about the RC church that story and the claims made that the baptisms are invalid are complete and utter BS. The actual words of a sacrament change all the time!!!! The words recited in confession, confirmation, marriage, the sacrament of the sick, all of them have changed dozens and dozens of times over the years. The priests and nuns I studied under instructed us that it was the intent of the participants that was the most important thing, not the actual words being said.

    In the orthodox version of baptism, which is fully accepted by the RC church, the words used in baptism the minister doesn’t refer to himself at all, there is no “I” or “we”. “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” is the exact phrasing used. And the RC church accepts this as a valid baptism.

    Also according to the laws of the church ANYONE can baptize anyone. You don’t need to be a priest or minister. You don’t even need to be baptized yourself in order to baptize someone else.

    I don’t know what’s going on here but the whole thing is just silly. Tell whoever is complaining to read the catechism of the catholic church for heaven’s sake.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes I saw his post … considerably longer than mine! 😉 (Personally, I didn’t feel it was worth that much of my time.)

      One thing I’ve noticed about ex-Catholics, they do tend to get rather riled up over this stuff. (Not mentioning any names.)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I should add that the sacraments are pretty much stuff they just made up and have little or no biblical basis. Jesus never instituted any of them. Marriage? He was quite content with the Jewish traditional marriage. Baptism? The only baptism actually recorded is Jesus’ baptism by John and that ceremony was totally different from what the RC church uses. No one in the bible sat down and taught the forms, rituals and verbiage that the RC church uses for any of this stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Can you imagine how angry God would be? I expected he would turn this guy into a pillar of salt or have him attacked by a bear, but I guess he will let him off with a few hail Marys just like he did with all the paedophile priests and simply do what he is really good at and watch over the misery and death of thousands of abused, hungry and sick children.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oh God WAS angry! That’s why it became such a BIG DEAL in the Catholic Church. Goodness! We can’t have these “representatives of God” throwing around improper sacraments!! The horror of it!


  7. Nan, some folks are wound too tight. As for the milk thing being blasphemous, it should be noted that in Saudi Arabia, the oil rich country is water poor. So, to save water, this Islamic country changed their rules to allow Muslims to pray with sand and not water, so as not to waste it. It is an interesting contrast to the milk versus wine critics. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pretty hilarious if you ask me. People getting all bunched up in the shorts because of the wrong word used in a religious ceremony. The joke is, it’s all B.S.! How is it that a wrong word can invalidate B.S.?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. This is the most ridiculous thing, but then so is religion. It will always amaze me how human beings can believe this sort of nonsense..utter madness

    Liked by 1 person

  10. (I)f a priest uses milk instead of wine during the Consecration of the Eucharist, the sacrament is not valid (because) the milk would not become the Blood of Jesus Christ.

    And they know this how exactly? What detectable difference is there to tell us that consecrated milk isn’t Jesus’ blood where as consecrated wine is? Do we have anything beyond their mere fiat and religious dogma in this matter?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Catholics believe so many “unproven” things and situations, that it seems perfectly acceptable that Jesus [“I Am Who I Am”] has really said so. The priests in Phoenix, Detroit and Oklahoma City knew that doctrine since the first of their 7 years in seminary, so I think they were honestly unaware of making a mistake. I would say that they indeed did not act according to the letter of the law (which is important) but they certainly respected the spirit of the law – which should prevail.
    Of course, that is my opinion but apparently not the Vatican’s judgement.
    In Rome they don’t seem to care about the inconveniences eventually caused to the people wrongly baptized, (“My bad”, see the excellent cartoonist Clay Jones –, thank you Jilldennison!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I have been skeptical of this story since I first saw it. First, ANYONE may perform a baptism in the RC Church. You do not need a priest. I seriously doubt if the baptisms are really invalid. The RC Church accepts as valid all kinds of Christian baptisms, the one exception being Mormon. And that is for theological reasons. I think it is a BS story to stir the pot. But it is funny. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Re: anyone performing RC baptisms — via — this is typically done only in extreme cases in which someone’s life is in danger. And it must be done in the “correct manner” (???).

      The story has been published in a number of places so it would seem there is some truth to it. Perhaps the fact that it involves baptisms that were done by an actual priest might have something to do with the hullabaloo.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am not going to debate the rituals of the RCism.
        There is the “ordinary” and then there are the exceptions.
        Too many opinions.
        Anyone can be baptized by anyone, even by an unbaptized person. And they are.
        If you are baptized and want to become RC, but cannot prove you were baptized by Pastor Redneck in Hunter’s Creek back in 99, then you will be baptized again (just in case). RC wants records.
        A lot depends on who and what interpretations are made.
        I know about this story and maybe it’s true, but why would he resign over that?
        I do not totally believe everything I read.
        Catholics fight and argue over this piss-ant stuff all the time and have forever.
        However, for communion the wine must be wine and the bread must be wheat to be valid, but that is a different matter. And ONLY a priest can do consecration and only during a Mass. 🙂
        I’ll bet that 90%+ of active RC’s think this baptism issue is BS and it does not matter if he said WE or I. “in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost” is the part that matters.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’m certainly not one to question what you say as I know next-to-nothing about Catholic rituals. I was just going by what was in the article (true or not).

          But thanks for the extra info. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • I understand.
          But it is kind of like birth control. It was a sin, yet that did not stop 80% of use RCs from using it. 🙂
          There are progressives, liberals, and conservatives within the RC organization. Lots of such debates.
          I took crap when I explained why the Mormon baptism wasn’t accepted. It was not my idea, but I was the messenger. Shot! 🙂


        • My way of looking at it:

          Yes, it ought to be bullshit. But maybe it isn’t.

          Bill is looking at this as being about the requirements for baptism. I am looking at it as being about the arbitrary fussiness of some of the Catholic hierarchy.

          It goes against common sense. But perhaps common sense is not what guides the hierarchy.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Surely, this must happen in every religion/denomination. I think it is BS. I just do not trust what I have read about it. I will personally call Pope Frances and get a reading. Okay? 🙂
          Arbitrary? Come on, Neil.

          Liked by 1 person

        • And among atheists and agnostics., as well. Such is humanity.
          But Nan, as she does, got me to looking and reading up more on this. I liked this part of one source….
          “But there are real-world consequences of doctrinal rulings — like trying to track down thousands of people with the upsetting news that their sacramental history was invalid — said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and columnist for Religion News Service.
          He would have preferred a Vatican ruling that such baptisms were valid even if not “licit,” or done by the book — in which case the priest might face discipline but the faithful would be unaffected.
          ‘That’s the problem when you get a bunch of bureaucrats in a room without thought to the pastoral consequences of the decision,’ he said.
          When I was baptized at age 8 (days), I distinctly recall the priest saying “I…” and I read his mind, so I also know he intended to do it right. 🙂
          Shall we discuss marriage next? Now there is where validity is a biggie.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. A clarification: I did some research and apparently the Vatican did indeed issue a doctrinal note back in June of 2020 declaring a very specific wording to be used for baptism. So it seems that yes, the baptisms that used “we” instead of “I” are, according to ‘the memo’, completely invalid. And that means that any sacraments such as confirmation or marriage that were performed on RC members who were not validly baptized are also invalid. And the implication is also that all the other baptisms from other Christian sects (orthodox, episcopalian, etc.) are invalid as well because they use a different wording.

    Even priests, bishops and cardinals blew up when this memo was issued because they knew that out here in the real world, outside of the offices of the bean counters at the Vatican, there are probably tens of millions of catholics out there who are probably invalidly baptized


  14. I have always wondered about the validity of my own baptism as I was told the vicar had run out of wine and Holy Water and the milk in his fridge had gone off. Apparently, my dad nipped next door to the Crown of Thorns pub and asked for a half-pint of Guinness, which the vicar duly blessed after “testing” it to make sure it was genuine.
    If this is *true it would explain a lot!
    *Being a religious story, it probably is legit.

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.