Mark 16:16, KJV: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

A Catholic priest has resigned after a church investigation found he performed invalid baptisms throughout most of his 20-year career, according to Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix.

Father Andres Arango, who performed thousands of baptisms, would say, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” But Bishop Olmsted explained the words “We baptize” should have been “I baptize” instead.

“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,” Bishop Olmsted said in a message to parishioners posted last month.

Olmsted said the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020 affirmed that when a baptism is conferred with the formula “We baptize … it is invalid, and people need to be baptized again.”

The error also means that because baptism is the first of the sacraments, some people will need to repeat other sacraments, according to the diocese website.

It’s easy enough to get re-baptized. I can’t help but wonder if Satan ended up with a whole lot of people burning in the everlasting fires of hell, though. It says in the Gospel of Mark, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.” The usual interpretation of this seems to be that both believeth and baptizeth are required for salvation.

What about those lost souls that were not actually baptized according to the precepts of the church and died before knowing the need to be re-baptized? Is there any way around what would seem to be eternal damnation? I’d give them a break, if I was running the show; after all, the improperly baptized weren’t at
fault. The priest messed up his lines. A simple error with pronouns.

But that’s me, and it wouldn’t be up to me. I have noticed that the Bible can seem rather inflexible. The re-baptism should work fine, for those aware of the error.

Except – what about those that were improperly baptized, and died before they could address the error? He that believeth and is baptized shall not perish… But what about those that, due to a simple mistake of using a wrong pronoun, thought they were baptized, but really weren’t, and died before the error could be addressed. Wouldn’t that annoy the hell (pardon) out of you, to have lived a good life, followed the rules, died for one reason or another, and found oneself tortured in the lake of fire, smelling the brimstone? For eternity. It doesn’t really seem very fair, does it?

Re-doing other sacraments could be problematic, too. Let’s hope the church can sort out any difficulties in that regard. Might there be married folks that aren’t quite sure they want to re-take that plunge on the sacrament of marriage, given a second chance to say yes? Or no?

I would certainly re-up for another hitch with Mrs. Basura. But would she sign re-enlistment papers with me? I hope so. Probably. At least most days.

Someone very close to me became religious and adopted Christianity later in life. As an adult, he came to believe. He went to church every Sunday. He contributed financially. His behavior reflected his beliefs. He didn’t even use bad words; he was a Navy veteran, but he no longer swore like a sailor. But he came to believe that he had never been baptized. His family of origin was not religious. He thought that perhaps there was a chance that he had been baptized as a baby.

His favorite aunt was a devout believer. Maybe she had had him baptized when he was a baby. She used to take him to church when he was little. But she was deceased, and there was no one to ask. He contacted the church where his aunt been a member until her death. That church had no records to indicate that his baptism had taken place there.

So he contacted the minister at the church where he was a member. The minister told him he shouldn’t worry about it. But this close friend was a worrier. He believed there was a lot at stake.

Maybe the best course of action would be to have the minister baptize him. If it would be a second baptism, there would be no problem. But if he hadn’t been baptized, maybe he could save himself a whole lot of bother – like eternal torment.

While the whole idea of using the magic words, and applying the magic water, might be subject to some debate, his thinking made perfect sense, at least logically. Getting baptized would be very little cost, and with the potential of huge benefit. He didn’t need for it to be a big deal. Just do it in your office, he said to the minister. It shouldn’t take long.

The minister couldn’t be bothered, though. He continued to advise to him not worry about it. Maybe the minister didn’t believe in baptism. Although that was his job. Food on the table, roof over his head; you get the idea. The minister, regardless of personal beliefs, was paid to minister to his congregation. He performed baptisms regularly.

So the man changed churches. He became a personal friend of his new minister. They worked it out, maybe just as the man suggested, with a brief, private, serious rite. Religion was not a topic he and I discussed much. I was the opposite. I was raised to be religious, but rejected it. He never had religiosity, but embraced it as an adult. It meant a great deal to him. He was a retiree, a father and a grandfather. And a Christian.

He didn’t proselytize to me. And I didn’t to him. We got along very well for many years. He died in his 70s, and believed he was going to a better place. I think that gave him some solace toward the end.