Much respect to The Pillar for paying serious attention to the issues raised about pronoun usage in the sacrament of baptism, and the implications thereof. While Bishop McElroy's response left you wanting more, I think he chose the most prudent path he possibly could. I am still searching for answers to the key question this raises for me regarding the history of the church. Because if what Bishop McElroy said is not true, or overly simplistic, it seems to me the church has a giant problem on its hands. If we cannot count on "the bounty of God's grace," then it is probably that the sacramental chain is broken all over the place by invalid baptisms that would mean invalid ordinations that would mean invalid sacraments conferred on others (including subsequent ordinations), all throughout the history of the church. The CDF's mandate that people must be rebaptized with the correct formula is difficult enough for those who are still alive. What about a bishop who was baptized incorrectly 400 years ago, thus (unless I am happily mistaken) invalidating all of the subsequent sacraments that bishop received, including ordination, and furthermore then invalidating all the sacraments that bishop conferred. That's a lot of invalid communion, baptism, ordination, etc. If we say today that people must be rebaptized, it's no good saying "don't worry about it" about the past. So — does anybody have an answer for this?
I feel like it comes down to responsibility: we can’t be responsible for something we don’t know and can’t possibly effect (the possible invalidity of the baptisms of history), but once it is known we are responsible. We now *know* that baptisms performed using the “we” are invalid and so we have the responsibility to re-baptize those baptized in the wrong form. In the same way that we allow for invincible ignorance to factor in the salvation of those who don’t know the Lord, while *at the same time* maintaining that salvation comes ONLY from the Lord, I would think we could assume that invincible ignorance (misunderstanding) of the appropriate form for baptism might still confer the full grace of baptism while still maintaining that baptisms must use the proper form for validity. We as humans describe the truth of the sacrament as the Lord has commanded, while still allowing for God’s love and mercy to fill in. So since we know the correct form is required for validity, we can’t just act like it doesn’t matter now, and have a responsibility to make every effort to baptize (or even rebaptize) everyone with a valid form, but still trust that God’s sacramental grace hasn’t failed through our ignorance.
Since three bishops are always required to ordain another bishop, it seems unlikely that one person thought wrongly to be a bishop would significantly impact the validity of orders for long after his lifetime, as the succession is preserved as long as at least one of the ordaining bishops was validly baptized and ordained. Also, a person does not need to be baptized themselves to confer baptism on another, so that does not factor in to the discussion.
Baptism is the first of the seven sacraments .There are six additional sacraments. Each of the seven conveys special graces. Some people receive one but not all of the sacraments. Since you agree that an invalid baptism does not preclude salvation just as the failure to confirm does not render the non confirmed permanently deficient in grace , why are you hung up on “We” ? Yes, “ I “ not We, is part of the Trinitarian formula so in the traditional, legalistic sense, the baptism could be called invalid. But there are exceptions. Baptism by Blood and Baptism by desire which inherently recognize that actions ( bleeding to death for your belief) and Desire are manifestations of a oneness with Christ. What is not talked about in this discussion is that sacramental graces are meaningless unless they are activated through faith. They are gifts many times not opened. Those who died at the stake already possessed grace. Their “ Baptism “ was not a conference of grace it was an acknowledgment of their grace. When I look at the grace filled lives of faithful people who were not “ legally “ baptized, re - baptizing them is like filling a full tank. It has no purpose.
These are all good points, I agree with them, but I still think that it is a big deal that some bone-heads use "we" instead of "I". Baptism isn't a spell where the magic works because of words, but it is still easier to get it correct than get it wrong. Just read the darn rite as written, you don't need to improve it. You certainly don't need to re-imagine it as grace worked through a community, Christ does the job well enough on his own.
Wow! With Ed's incredible knowledge of admiralty law, and with J.D. being an actual real-life admiral, maybe you guys should have named your site "The Anchor" instead of "The Pillar"!
Great reading this week. Keep up the good work, and God bless!
Great version of "Leave Her Johnny, Leave Her". I was a bit worried when I saw the wine bottles as I always envision sailors drinking rum or ale, but the group managed in spite of their fussy beverage choice.
I took maritime law while a law student in Baltimore and was quite enthusiastic about it, but was told by the professor that their were basically no available jobs in the field. In Baltimore, at least, you have to be a child of a partner in the handful of firms practicing maritime law to be considered. Which did make me wonder why the law school was even offering the course, but I won't go there.
If Durham’s work is, as you accuse, a “dog and pony show,” then we need a whole circus of such acts in Washington DC. The rapier point of his filing is that the whole accusation of Russian-collusion-by-Trump is a Democrat funded concoction of illegal data harvesting and twisted pretenses based on that data. Durham Is building a strong case against desperate and devious forces in the FBI and CIA., not to mention the lying White House. Let it be, let it be.
Much respect to The Pillar for paying serious attention to the issues raised about pronoun usage in the sacrament of baptism, and the implications thereof. While Bishop McElroy's response left you wanting more, I think he chose the most prudent path he possibly could. I am still searching for answers to the key question this raises for me regarding the history of the church. Because if what Bishop McElroy said is not true, or overly simplistic, it seems to me the church has a giant problem on its hands. If we cannot count on "the bounty of God's grace," then it is probably that the sacramental chain is broken all over the place by invalid baptisms that would mean invalid ordinations that would mean invalid sacraments conferred on others (including subsequent ordinations), all throughout the history of the church. The CDF's mandate that people must be rebaptized with the correct formula is difficult enough for those who are still alive. What about a bishop who was baptized incorrectly 400 years ago, thus (unless I am happily mistaken) invalidating all of the subsequent sacraments that bishop received, including ordination, and furthermore then invalidating all the sacraments that bishop conferred. That's a lot of invalid communion, baptism, ordination, etc. If we say today that people must be rebaptized, it's no good saying "don't worry about it" about the past. So — does anybody have an answer for this?
I feel like it comes down to responsibility: we can’t be responsible for something we don’t know and can’t possibly effect (the possible invalidity of the baptisms of history), but once it is known we are responsible. We now *know* that baptisms performed using the “we” are invalid and so we have the responsibility to re-baptize those baptized in the wrong form. In the same way that we allow for invincible ignorance to factor in the salvation of those who don’t know the Lord, while *at the same time* maintaining that salvation comes ONLY from the Lord, I would think we could assume that invincible ignorance (misunderstanding) of the appropriate form for baptism might still confer the full grace of baptism while still maintaining that baptisms must use the proper form for validity. We as humans describe the truth of the sacrament as the Lord has commanded, while still allowing for God’s love and mercy to fill in. So since we know the correct form is required for validity, we can’t just act like it doesn’t matter now, and have a responsibility to make every effort to baptize (or even rebaptize) everyone with a valid form, but still trust that God’s sacramental grace hasn’t failed through our ignorance.
Since three bishops are always required to ordain another bishop, it seems unlikely that one person thought wrongly to be a bishop would significantly impact the validity of orders for long after his lifetime, as the succession is preserved as long as at least one of the ordaining bishops was validly baptized and ordained. Also, a person does not need to be baptized themselves to confer baptism on another, so that does not factor in to the discussion.
Baptism is the first of the seven sacraments .There are six additional sacraments. Each of the seven conveys special graces. Some people receive one but not all of the sacraments. Since you agree that an invalid baptism does not preclude salvation just as the failure to confirm does not render the non confirmed permanently deficient in grace , why are you hung up on “We” ? Yes, “ I “ not We, is part of the Trinitarian formula so in the traditional, legalistic sense, the baptism could be called invalid. But there are exceptions. Baptism by Blood and Baptism by desire which inherently recognize that actions ( bleeding to death for your belief) and Desire are manifestations of a oneness with Christ. What is not talked about in this discussion is that sacramental graces are meaningless unless they are activated through faith. They are gifts many times not opened. Those who died at the stake already possessed grace. Their “ Baptism “ was not a conference of grace it was an acknowledgment of their grace. When I look at the grace filled lives of faithful people who were not “ legally “ baptized, re - baptizing them is like filling a full tank. It has no purpose.
These are all good points, I agree with them, but I still think that it is a big deal that some bone-heads use "we" instead of "I". Baptism isn't a spell where the magic works because of words, but it is still easier to get it correct than get it wrong. Just read the darn rite as written, you don't need to improve it. You certainly don't need to re-imagine it as grace worked through a community, Christ does the job well enough on his own.
Wow! With Ed's incredible knowledge of admiralty law, and with J.D. being an actual real-life admiral, maybe you guys should have named your site "The Anchor" instead of "The Pillar"!
Great reading this week. Keep up the good work, and God bless!
Great version of "Leave Her Johnny, Leave Her". I was a bit worried when I saw the wine bottles as I always envision sailors drinking rum or ale, but the group managed in spite of their fussy beverage choice.
I took maritime law while a law student in Baltimore and was quite enthusiastic about it, but was told by the professor that their were basically no available jobs in the field. In Baltimore, at least, you have to be a child of a partner in the handful of firms practicing maritime law to be considered. Which did make me wonder why the law school was even offering the course, but I won't go there.
While the "We baptize" is of concern I am wondering if these priests also used "We" in the confessional. Now that is something for the CDF to address.
If Durham’s work is, as you accuse, a “dog and pony show,” then we need a whole circus of such acts in Washington DC. The rapier point of his filing is that the whole accusation of Russian-collusion-by-Trump is a Democrat funded concoction of illegal data harvesting and twisted pretenses based on that data. Durham Is building a strong case against desperate and devious forces in the FBI and CIA., not to mention the lying White House. Let it be, let it be.
I enjoyed this as well as JD’s piece in the Wall Street Journal about the pronouns and Pope Francis. You two are excellent!