Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Andres Arango of Phoenix, baptized thousands of worshipers over 20 years using the same words spoken during the baptism. 

Now, the baptisms have been ruled invalid over the use of one word in place of another.

When baptizing someone, usually a baby or young child, the priest used the words, "We baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

In fact, the words he should have used are, "I baptize you ..."  The difference is minor, but the meaning is not.  "I" indicates that Jesus Christ is baptizing you.  Christ is the only person through which someone can be baptized.  Saying "We" changed the entire meaning and purpose of the baptism.

Now, all the baptisms he performed have been deemed to not be actual baptisms, and should be properly performed again to be valid in the eyes of the Church.

And I thought pronouns were only related to gender-diversity.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/national/2022/02/16/explainer-why-are-thousands-of-baptisms-deemed-invalid/

Makes you wonder what words John the Baptist used when he baptized Jesus?
Catholics have a lot of "Detail" that is hard to understand why it is important.
 

Makes you wonder what words John the Baptist used when he baptized Jesus?
Catholics have a lot of "Detail" that is hard to understand why it is important.
 

One of the issues we have with ancient writings (not just religious works) is translating them. 

Take The Lord's Prayer for example.  Some are taught "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."  Some are taught, "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."  Still others are taught, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

The differences arise out of the translations into other languages as well as the number of passages used to create an aggregate "agreement" among the words used.

So, Greek might use one word, while Hebrew something else.  Both translations may be accurate in context of their languages, yet between the two, one given word in Greek might translate differently from Hebrew.

In order to resolve questions over words, meanings and inferences, the Catholic Church likes to be the final authority.  Whatever they say goes.  So, in a baptismal rite, the words are governed by the church.  If you deviate, you are not performing  the rite as prescribed, and as such, risk the rite itself not being properly performed.

Other branches of Christianity look at rites and rituals a little more leniently.  But for the Catholic Church, there seems to be little tolerance for ad libbing. 

I remember when the New Living Testament (NLT) Bible was printed, there was a big controversy among certain churches.  While the intent was to translate the King James version into more current, accepted language for modern times -- thus making it easier to read and understand -- there were opponents who felt that was somehow wrong.

"That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

versus

"A rose by any other name would still smell sweet."

Paraphrasing that line from Romeo and Juliet doesn't change its meaning.  Yet, there are strict textualists who believe you need to learn the original text, or something important is lost in the translation.

2 questions come to my mind:

Why did Father Arango use the word "we"?  The church is so regimented in doctrines how did he not know the exact words to use?

Why did it take so long for the Church to find out he was administering baptisms incorrectly?

The administering of Mass is strictly regimented too.  The wording is precise.

I would think to be ordained as a Priest you have to go through some kind of "exam" or something.  They could have caught the mistake there. 

2 questions come to my mind:

Why did Father Arango use the word "we"?  The church is so regimented in doctrines how did he not know the exact words to use?

Why did it take so long for the Church to find out he was administering baptisms incorrectly?

The administering of Mass is strictly regimented too.  The wording is precise.

I would think to be ordained as a Priest you have to go through some kind of "exam" or something.  They could have caught the mistake there.

From letters from the priest and Diocese, it sounds like a completely innocent oversight on his part, and it was such a minor change, nobody else in the services caught the difference until last month.  They then contacted the Diocese to ask for clarification.  Once the Diocese learned of the priest's alteration of the "formula", they investigated and found he'd been using this formula for 20 to 25 years.

Chalk it up to the problem going unnoticed for all that time.

As for a Priest going through an exam, he's a Latino, and he started his priesthood in Brazil.  Something tells me the mistake was not caught partially due to the language used in the rites, and partially because most people involved in the ceremonies trusted the Priest knew what he was doing.  Once they received a signed Baptism Certificate, everything was official. 

The FAQ posted by the Diocese said this is not a rare problem, but it's usually caught and corrected much earlier.

Maybe Satan needed to cheat to harvest more souls?  We all know he loves to use contracts with lots of loopholes.   

One of the issues we have with ancient writings (not just religious works) is translating them. 

Take The Lord's Prayer for example.  Some are taught "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."  Some are taught, "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."  Still others are taught, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

The differences arise out of the translations into other languages as well as the number of passages used to create an aggregate "agreement" among the words used.

So, Greek might use one word, while Hebrew something else.  Both translations may be accurate in context of their languages, yet between the two, one given word in Greek might translate differently from Hebrew.

In order to resolve questions over words, meanings and inferences, the Catholic Church likes to be the final authority.  Whatever they say goes.  So, in a baptismal rite, the words are governed by the church.  If you deviate, you are not performing  the rite as prescribed, and as such, risk the rite itself not being properly performed.

Other branches of Christianity look at rites and rituals a little more leniently.  But for the Catholic Church, there seems to be little tolerance for ad libbing. 

I remember when the New Living Testament (NLT) Bible was printed, there was a big controversy among certain churches.  While the intent was to translate the King James version into more current, accepted language for modern times -- thus making it easier to read and understand -- there were opponents who felt that was somehow wrong.

"That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

versus

"A rose by any other name would still smell sweet."

Paraphrasing that line from Romeo and Juliet doesn't change its meaning.  Yet, there are strict textualists who believe you need to learn the original text, or something important is lost in the translation.

I zoom a bible study weekly.  I own 6 bibles.
on any given week the Bible study leader may use a different version than I have
chosen to use.
I'm pretty used to realtime re-interpretations.
I attended university classes with Seminarians.
( they were arrogant a$$holes)
So I'm a little confused why the Catholics are so dogmatic.
I guess that is why I'm old school Lutheran and not Catholic.
Aloha
 

I zoom a bible study weekly.  I own 6 bibles.
on any given week the Bible study leader may use a different version than I have
chosen to use.
I'm pretty used to realtime re-interpretations.
I attended university classes with Seminarians.
( they were arrogant a$$holes)
So I'm a little confused why the Catholics are so dogmatic.
I guess that is why I'm old school Lutheran and not Catholic.
Aloha
 

My longest time in a particular church was Presbyterian.  If I had to describe the attitude there in context of this topic, I'd say we were taught the "spirit of the law", not so much the "letter of the law."

Comprehension over memorization is much more effective in real life.

Now, If I were running from a band of Illuminati while trying to solve riddles and puzzles to discover who's behind a series of murders, then the details would be more applicable.   

My longest time in a particular church was Presbyterian.  If I had to describe the attitude there in context of this topic, I'd say we were taught the "spirit law", not so much the "letter of the law."

Comprehension over memorization is much more effective in real life.

Now, If I were running from a band of Illuminati while trying to solve riddles and puzzles to discover who's behind a series of murders, then the details would be more applicable.   

"Comprehension over memorization is much more effective in real life."

Very true.