The official stance is a little more complicated. These rites are sacramental, not magical, in nature; it’s not so much that the wording has to be precise or the supernatural effects won’t happen - we’re not enacting a miracle so much as participating in God’s miracle. It’s not an incantational science; there is room for little mess-ups like stutters or mispronunciations. But for a sacrament to be performed properly, it must be done with the correct intention, form, and material.
We have the correct material (water and unbaptized person), the correct intention (to baptize), but not the right form (the meanings of the words being spoken). This doesn’t mean that God didn’t “hear” the attempted baptism, no does it mean that He refuses to “count” it. Nobody has been in danger of going to hell for this mistake. But the argument is that the phrasing used has been a phrasing that has been rejected by the Church for a couple of centuries now.
It’s one thing when you say something like “I, uh, I baptize you in the Name of….” or “I ba-a-aptize you in the Name of…” The basics of the form are all still covered: {Minister} {baptizes the unbaptized} {through an invocation of the Trinitarian God}. It’s okay if the words are accidentally flubbed a little. But “I” and “We” are not the same; there’s a theological difference, an insinuation that everyone present at the baptism is participating in the act of baptism. And that’s not quite true - it is the minister acting by the power of Christ.
Since the sacraments are channels of God’s own actions, the sacraments are supposed to reflect those acts. And if a sacrament is deemed to be performed in a way that is at variance with God’s acts, it may be invalid. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t have used it as a channel; but the Diocese has decided it is better to play on the safe side and have these sacraments redone, just so we are sure.
blakekathryn
snowghoul
baratheonpilled
ellievsbear
gracieabrams
turnnoffyourmind
areudirty
