All Baptisms Performed By Phoenix Priest Invalid Because He Changed One Word - Reverend Andres Arango has resigned to “dedicate my energy and full time ministry to help remedy this and heal those affected."

A Catholic priest in Arizona resigned after discovering he incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms for over 20 years​

Article / Archive
Article #2 / Archive #2

- It wasn't immediately clear how many baptisms the priest had performed.

A priest resigned earlier this month after his diocese discovered the baptisms he had performed were invalid because he had changed a single word while performing the sacrament.

"It is with sincere pastoral concern that I inform the faithful that baptisms performed by Reverend Andres Arango, a priest of the Diocese of Phoenix, are invalid," Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix Thomas J. Olmsted announced in a letter last month.

"This determination was made after careful study by diocesan officials and through consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome," he wrote.

Arango, who has been practicing as a priest for more than two decades, used the phrase “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," instead of "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

"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 sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020 clarified that using [A] "we" during the first sacrament was not valid.

It wasn't immediately clear how many baptisms Arango performed. He also practiced in San Diego and Brazil.

---

Rain and petals eavesdrop, he used the wrong word.

 

[Chongqing]

I feel bad.

 

[El Goblina]

why_i_am_not_catholic.txt

This is straight-up Pharisee nonsense. Do they honestly think that Jesus is going to bless the immersed (oh, wait, they also redefined βαπτίζω to have a specific religious meaning decoupled from the understanding of those listening to Jesus when he spoke about it) any less because they used the first-person plural instead of singular? They know that according to Catholic dogma, God is triune, right?

Thank God that Jesus is the judge we will be appealing to when this Satanic clown world is over.

 

[No. 7 cat]

why_i_am_not_catholic.txt

This is straight-up Pharisee nonsense. Do they honestly think that Jesus is going to bless the immersed (oh, wait, they also redefined βαπτίζω to have a specific religious meaning decoupled from the understanding of those listening to Jesus when he spoke about it) any less because they used the first-person plural instead of singular? They know that according to Catholic dogma, God is triune, right?

Thank God that Jesus is the judge we will be appealing to when this Satanic clown world is over.

A priest or any baptizer (anyone can baptize provided they intend to baptize, to make the person Christ) is acting in persona Christi, he or she is acting as Jesus for the purpose of the baptism..

However, at other times (well 2003) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that while using the first person plural was concerning, it did not invalidate the baptism.



Anyhow it's a consequence of the post V2 thing of treating the use of the correct words and reverence as rigid. This wouldn't have happened in earlier times for the priest would just have said the printed words 'ego te baptizo' plus the exorcisms and other prayers.

 

[Bonesjones]

Kid fucking is totally OK with Jesus if you are catholic, saying the slightly less correct word during baptism? Burn in hell forever heretic!

 

[Zero Day Defense]

"Ah, so when you make extraconcilliar additions to the Creed, that's okay, but when one of you uses the wrong pronoun in your baptismal formula, that's a problem?"

Semi-jokes aside, while not being Catholic, I view this in the same way I view trying to come up with an innovative heart surgery method while you're in the ER. The job that you signed up for is to faithfully say a prescribed phrase, and meaning of that phrase is different if you change pretty much any of the words in it, so just read the slip of paper and stop doing unnecessary things in the job you signed up for. You want to do something different? Bring it up in a conference and ask for permission from the community you're a part of.

Or you end up risking situations like this.

However, at other times (well 2003) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that while using the first person plural was concerning, it did not invalidate the baptism.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020 clarified that using [A] "we" during the first sacrament was not valid.

 

[Sneed's Feed And Seed]

It's a royal "we", don't be so niggling, Catholicism.

 

[Screw Danlon]

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 sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.

Except even if you say “I baptize you”…. You’re still not Christ.

 

[murdered meat bag]

more than the legal "you said we not i" it points to the priest being unprepared for the rites.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

This is so extra and so random I wonder if this guy is actually in trouble with the (((Jesuit mafia))) or something and the extra word thing is just the cover story for why he has to disappear.

 

[Grand Wizard Wakka]

Looks like God is going to have to send all, and may have already sent some, of these people to Hell for this.

 

[Maggots on a Train v2]

If the gas station can spot you a few pennies from a mayonnaise jar, I'm sure the creator of the universe can spot you one word.

 

[Mnutu]

Except even if you say “I baptize you”…. You’re still not Christ.

Priests act as the vessel for Christ. It’s why they can receive confessions and give certain blessings. It’s why most “kiss the ring” and cross themselves before a priest. It’s not the man, but THE Man.

 

[Some JERK]

Jesus plays word games, fucks people on technicalities. Got it. I mean I know the dude is a Jew, but come on...

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If the gas station can spot you a few pennies from a mayonnaise jar, I'm sure the creator of the universe can spot you one word.

Depends on the word.

Shoot, sometimes it depends on the letter.

 

[Some JERK]

Depends on the word.

Shoot, sometimes it depends on the letter.

Which makes little sense. Humans invented language and God is supposedly all about intent and the contents of your heart.

"Get into heaven with this one weird word-trick. God HATES it!"

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Which makes little sense. Humans invented language and God is supposedly all about intent and the contents of your heart.

Which is why it's necessary to have the right contents in one's heart and mind-- those end up shaping what your intents are and guide them in whichever direction.

In the case of what I linked to, we're talking about a drastic difference: is Christ the Creator or merely a created being? The implications of either one are fundamental and cascading on what constitutes "right practice" and even "right intent" because it directly impacts what's considered "right belief". You say that humans invented language, but language is but a proxy for meaning which exists regardless.

 

[murdered meat bag]

Jesus plays word games, fucks people on technicalities. Got it. I mean I know the dude is a Jew, but come on...

even in the OT the priests were to take their role seriously and bad things happened to those who didnt. obedience is important.

 

[Some JERK]

even in the OT the priests were to take their role seriously and bad things happened to those who didnt. obedience is important.

Making a mistake isn't disobedience unless the person in charge is a total asshole.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Making a mistake isn't disobedience unless the person in charge is a total asshole.

In this case, the priest made the "mistake" several times despite it being certain that they have instructions for the rite. And even without it being disobedience, it's still an error that negatively impacts several people.

It's like (again) heart surgery-- sure, you might have "made a mistake" and cut where you shouldn't have, but now the person you were operating on is dead. You weren't out for the guy, but the guy's still dead.

At this point it isn't even a matter of the people who were affected by the priest doing what he did-- it's a matter of the priest putting people in (for as much as a Catholic can claim to know) jeopardy because he functionally wasn't doing his best in giving the faithful as many of the tools that they needed to put them on the best path.