Did a Roman Catholic priest perform ‘invalid’ baptisms for years?

Published in

The Sacred Faith

5 min readFeb 19, 2022

Baby being baptised — Photo by Josh Applegate on Unsplash

You may have seen in the news lately, a Roman Catholic priest in Arizona, USA, has apparently performed “invalid” baptism for years, well over a decade, even.

Due to this, now thousands of people are stressing about whether their baptism counted or if they need to be re-baptised due to the error by Rev. Andres Arango! This has caused concern over the other sacraments these people have partaken in since their baptism, such as the Eucharist, and whether they should have even been allowed it. The Diocese of Phoenix is trying to identify people baptised by Arango so that they can track them down for re-baptism (and possibly, re-confirmation and whatever other repercussions are deemed to have come from this).

What was the error so grave that the Roman Catholic Church is going to all this effort to correct? Arango said “we baptise…” instead of “I baptise…” when performing the baptisms!

Did you catch that? “We” not “I”. Now, this may seem like a minor issue to many of you, and not such a big deal. And I would agree, as I don’t believe this should (or would) have made a difference in the actual act, even if theologically speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective, it’s very different.

In Roman Catholicism the difference is crucial. The Vatican ruled in 2020 that it’s not the “we” of the congregation doing the baptising but the “I” of Jesus Christ, working through the priest. I agree with the principle on a theological level, and in some ways, seeing ordination as a sort-of “human sacrament” to the community etc., but I don’t believe that Jesus is not going to impart the Holy Spirit and his grace to the one being baptised just because the priest said the wrong words. This is not magic that needs the correct spell to be cast in order to make it effective. The faith and intent of all involved should suffice as far as this part is concerned.

A few caveats though, as I don’t want my words to be misconstrued. There are correct words that need to be said for baptism to be valid on one very important level: what and who you are being baptised into. When being baptised, we are baptised into Christ in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That much is pretty important to be clear on, as it is what Jesus instructed and it makes it clear who we belong to through the baptismal process. In the case of these so-called “invalid” baptisms, they were, in fact, baptised in the Trinitarian formula and should be considered valid on that basis alone.

Donatism

To me, this all sounds reminiscent of the Donatist controversy in the fourth century. This was a teaching claiming that the validity of sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister; e.g., if the one performing a baptism were in sin, then the baptism would be invalid. This sect persisted for a long time and eventually died out sometime after the fifth century, with the help of Augustine of Hippo.

It obviously isn’t exactly the same issue faced by the early church, as Donatism was more about the moral standing of the ordained bishop or priest (and whether they recanted their faith during harsh persecution), rather than whether they recited liturgy correctly. But the similarities are there, I think we can agree.

Augustine argued that a sacrament was from God and ex opere operato, Latin for “from the work carried out”, or “by the very fact of the actions being performed” — meaning that it is the act itself that makes it effective, not the person doing the act. For example, a priest or bishop in a state of sin could continue to administer valid sacraments and have them be effective because the power within the sacrament is tied to God, and not the administrator.

Now, I don’t think (or know) that the Rev. Arango was in any state of sin when giving these baptisms using the wrong phrasing, and so some may argue that this is nothing like the Donatist heresy and not relevant to bring up. But take a look at what Augustine pointed out when discussing priests who may have “[uttered] some words of error” with regards to sanctifying the waters of baptism:

“…if over some he offers an erroneous prayer, God is present to uphold the words of His gospel… [for] He Himself consecrates His sacrament.” (Augustine, On Baptism VI, 25:47)

As I mentioned earlier, the only time he would also agree that the words said in baptism matter is when it comes to the name in which a person is baptised:

“Clearly, if the baptism is not consecrated in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it should be considered to be of the heretics, and repudiated as unrighteous by us…” (Augustine, On Baptism VI, 36:70)

The current events swirling around this issue have the potential to cause people to doubt their faith and salvation, due to the guidance issued by the Vatican back in June 2020, which stated that “the ‘We’ formula was invalid and that anyone who was baptised using it must be re-baptized using the proper formula”. This flies in the face of what was already discussed, written about, and settled, during Cyprian (250) and Augustine’s time (400) concerning the very same predicament. If we read more of Augustine’s work, On Baptism Against the Donatists, it’s as though he is speaking into this very issue today:

“Supposing, then, that it were shown that some persons were baptised when these [erroneous] prayers had been uttered over the water, will they be bidden to be baptised afresh? Why not? Because generally the fault in the prayer is more than counterbalanced by the intent of him who offers it; and those fixed words of the gospel (Matt 28:19), without which baptism cannot be consecrated, are of such efficacy, that, by their virtue, anything faulty that is uttered in the prayer contrary to the rule of faith is made of no effect, just as the devil is excluded by the name of Christ.” (Augustine, On Baptism VI, 25:47)

With that, I don’t think any more needs to be said. The historic Church has already settled this matter many centuries ago, and what the Vatican is doing now by having people tracked down for rebaptism goes against everything the Gospel and efficiency of the sacraments should stand for, and they are in the wrong for doing so and causing people to doubt their salvation.

Did a Roman Catholic priest perform ‘invalid’ baptisms for years?

Donatism

Sources

Written by Luke J. Wilson