The strange story of a Priest who wasn’t a Priest.

G

GP44

Member
In 2020 a Matthew Hood looked at a video of his infant Baptism.
He noticed that the Deacon who performed his Baptism said “ We Baptize you in——-“
That didn’t look right to him because when the words “I Baptize you” it is meant that you are acting in the name of Jesus Christ and as an instrument of God.
I will refer to him as Father Hood asked his superiors and they decided that because he wasn’t properly Baptized that he wasn’t able to receive the sacraments as ordained by the Church.
One of those was the one that ordained him as a Priest.
So with that being what it was none of the ceremonies that he performed were considered valid either.
The church looked into how many other Baptisms that Deacon had failed to perform properly and he had done the same to others who had been ordained priests.
The Archdiocese of Detroit has gone back and tried to reach out to couples who weren’t properly married and to offer to perform a valid ceremony.
They have found some but may never locate others.
I was looking at facts about Baptism because members of my family wish to be Baptized but are having problems finding a pastor who is willing to do it in a private ceremony.
 

Last edited:
When I was looking at what it takes to be Baptized I ran into this and it was in regards to how some people are trying to make the Baptism into a more inclusive type of ceremony by saying WE instead of I like it is supposed to be.
But by changing the words that they are supposed to be using it takes the Jesus part out of it and make it about the people who are performing it.
Might sound nit picky but I can see where when the right words are said it represents something higher than just the person performing the ceremony.
It is the way it is stated in the Bible for a reason.
 
I saw the news story, and I understand the point being made. The Catholic stance contrasts with some other Christian denominations where "we baptize you" is used, reflecting a belief that the church community participates in the baptismal act, even though it is Christ who ultimately baptizes through the Holy Spirit.

You wrote, "The Archdiocese of Detroit has gone back and tried to reach out to couples who weren’t properly married and to offer to perform a valid ceremony. They have found some but may never locate others."

It doesn't likely matter how I feel about this, but since you posted this issue, I assume you're looking for responses. I submit that God knows what was in the heart of the Deacon, even if he misunderstood the importance of getting the words perfectly at the baptisms and marriages in question. If those people had their hearts and commitments in the right place I cannot believe they will be held accountable for a human error, if it was indeed an error.
 
will this clarify things any better?

Eugene Mormon
BTh./PhD program in Theology, Cypress Bible Institute (Graduated 1997)Author has 20.2K answers and 69.2M answer views6y
Originally Answered: Why did the Apostles defy Jesus’ command to baptise ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit’?
The apostles most certainly did NOT defy Yahshua’s (Jesus’) command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

The apostles had their understanding opened by Yahshua just prior to this, and were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They knew exactly what He was saying and obeyed Him precisely and to the letter. This scripture (Mat. 28:19) is one of the greatest scriptures to demonstrate the true nature of the Godhead, and why my explanations of the Godhead do not parrot the traditional teachings of the “trinity”.

Yahshua told His disciples to baptize people in a very specific NAME. This name would represent the Father-God, the person the Jews knew as Yahweh, the Son, Who was revealed to them as Yahshua, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, the Divine Presence of God in His believers, in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and revealed on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

When the disciples began to baptize, it is very clearly and specifically stated that they did NOT repeat the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” over persons they were baptizing. They said, in the name of Yahshua (Jesus), when they baptized. Each time. Each and every single time. Why?

The name of Yahshua is extremely important in the New Testament. No one can be saved without His name (Acts 4:12). there is not salvation in any other name. His name is the name above ALL names (Phil. 2). We are to do ALL things IN THIS NAME. Colossians 3:17. Wouldn’t you think baptism would be included in this? Obviously, in the Bible, it was (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:44–48, 19:5.6). In 1 John, there are a few interesting references to believing IN HIS NAME. If you study the Psalms, you will see that God’s NAME was always extremely important. That is a whole study in itself.

Because God is ONE, a Unity, an undivided and indivisible whole, a singularity, He can and does reveal and manifest Himself to His creation in whatever way He pleases, and still remains ONE God. He doesn’t become another God when He shows Himself as a pillar of clouds, or fire, or a dove, or a voice. Those are NOT “separate persons”. Those are called, in the language of theology, a “theophany”. Yahshua (Jesus) was the ultimate and complete theophany and revelation of God as described in Hebrews 1.

So when the disciples baptized using the name of Yahshua, they used the specific name Yahshua told them to use: the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. He came in HIS FATHER’S NAME. He sent the Holy Spirit IN HIS NAME. Everything was centered on Him and His name. When they baptized with the name of Yahshua, they DID baptize in the Father’s name, the Son’s name, and the Holy Spirit’s name. Belief in the Oneness of God and the Unity of God is necessary to fully accept this, and traditions that came out of church councils and “fathers” are what completely confused this issue, which to me in extremely obvious.

Once people began dividing God up into “separate persons” did all the confusion begin. And no one can tell me it isn’t confusion; people are still asking, in 2018, what this all meant. Clearly if it wasn’t confusion people wouldn’t be trying to figure it out, over 2000 years later. And God is not the author of confusion. guess who is?

As I’ve said before (in answers to repeated questions on this matter many times before), find the book The Oneness of God, which is easy to get free from pdfdrive .net. that explains it much better than I ever could.
 
Baptism rules vary in the denominations. Many churches don't honor the baptism of other churches. I say it depends on the intent of the one getting baptized, but in some church's where babies are baptized, I suppose correct wording is important since the baby has no intent and hasn't confessed anything.

I submit that waterboarding is an effective form of adult baptism. It certainly gets one to confess in an expedient manner. :ROFLMAO:
 
The reason why I posted this about Father Matthew was because I thought that it was such an interesting story.
Whether God recognizes one type of Baptism or another is beyond me and like a lot of you I would have a hard time believing that a merciful God would deny anyone who believes in him because of technicalities.
What I believe in shouldn’t matter to anyone but myself and my loved ones just as I respect what you choose to believe in or not to believe in.
 
well unfortunately the many various religious denominations [christianized only atm?] all use different phraseologies and methodologies when discussing 'christian baptism' and slowly over time
infant baptism became a new idea?? the following is an interesting read about it all albeit some may be generated by AI [seems we can't get away from it now ?]

baptism through the ages?
 
With all the horrific behavioral breaches by the Catholic church for centuries, this is what they hyper focus on? You can't make this sh!t up. Well, you probably could but no one would believe you.

It would be amusing if it weren't so bloody stupid.
 
StarSong said:
With all the horrific behavioral breaches by the Catholic church for centuries, this is what they hyper focus on? You can't make this sh!t up. Well, you probably could but no one would believe you.

It would be amusing if it weren't so bloody stupid.
Click to expand...
you talkin about the general topic or my last contribution?
 
smiley said:
well unfortunately the many various religious denominations [christianized only atm?] all use different phraseologies and methodologies when discussing 'christian baptism' and slowly over time
infant baptism became a new idea?? the following is an interesting read about it all albeit some may be generated by AI [seems we can't get away from it now ?]

baptism through the ages?
Click to expand...
Mom and Dad were from different backgrounds and my Mom would have been a diehard Catholic if she hadn’t married Dad.
I was Baptized a Catholic when I spent a summer with relatives at 12 years old I never felt like it was about me as much as it was what other people wanted.
I attended Catholic Schools after that but when I went back to get a transcript of my grades - school locked up for the summer so the priest helped get them for me.
He asked me if I married a Catholic and was going to raise my kids Catholic.
I told him that I wanted my kids to be able to choose what if any religion.
So he told me I was kicked out.
I believe in judge not lest thee be judged and although I see a lot of things that the Church does that I don’t care for I don’t speak against it.
I am very proud of what my kids grew up to be -clean- honest- caring people.
Just recently my wife told me that she wants to be Baptized along with the kids and I told her that I want to be Baptized too because I feel like I never was really Baptized.
So happy that they all want to be Baptized and also that they can choose to go to any church they like and that they believe in God and know right from wrong.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top