2nd baptism for a child formerly catholic and now attending a different church

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbleheds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think that Baptists or Pentecostals would baptize a 5 year old. I was raised Baptist and wasn’t baptized until I was 13.
I was raised Assembly of God and was baptized at eight. Also, my brother was part of an EFCA church that eventually moved to the SBC, and during one of their baptism services, they baptized a few younger children, though I didn’t know their exact ages. Basically, it’s not unheard of for credobaptist groups to baptize young, so long as the child expresses a desire and appears to understand, at least to some extent, what it means to be baptized according to that denomination.
 
Really guys? Really? Have we taken to discriminating others now? Are we really above them? Is this really who we are? Because if I weren’t already catholic, I would be questioning why I would want to join such an unkind and uncharitable church.
Think you are missing (or misinterpreting) much of the point. Attending functions that are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching (whether inadvertent or intentionally so) indicate a sanction or form of agreement with the function on the part of the Catholic party. I don’t think it is a question of discriminating and generally the angst on the part of the poster indicates that friction possibly caused by not attending such a function is something that the poster wants to avoid. I don’t think it is a feeling that “we are better than they are”. It’s simply, “I don’t want to give false witness…”
 
Last edited:
I am seeing a few threads today on “can I go to a non-catholic………”. And a lot of the answers are surprising me, mostly because it feels like, “don’t do it, they are not like us, we are better than them”.
Are there any particular posts you have in mind?
 
You made the right decision. One cannot be baptized twice.
 
I’ve known Baptists who were baptized at 7 or 8, but I haven’t heard of any baptized as young as 5. Even in the Catholic Church, I think that 7 is the age of accountability.
 
I’ve known Baptists who were baptized at 7 or 8, but I haven’t heard of any baptized as young as 5. Even in the Catholic Church, I think that 7 is the age of accountability.
As far as I’m aware, there is no hard-set age of accountability in Protestantism. Maybe there’s some denominations that have it, but as far as I know, Baptists don’t.

Granted, as I mentioned, five is a bit young. However, I do know that children can be baptized under certain conditions, and whether or not five is too young would seem to come down to the discretion of the pastor.
 
The OP is not being advised to shun people.
Apologies, may have used an incorrect word. The OP has thought of and been encouraged not to attend her granddaughter’s baptism. To me it falls under the meaning of shun: persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.
 
Think you are missing (or misinterpreting) much of the point. Attending functions that are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching (whether inadvertent or intentionally so) indicate a sanction…
Am I? Quoting some of Mark 7. We may be putting traditions over love of Jesus here, so I think it applies.

1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him, 2 and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, keep the tradition of the elders and never eat without washing their arms as far as the elbow;

5 So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?’ 6 He answered, 'How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites in the passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me.

7 Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments. 8 You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.’ 9 And he said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition!

13 In this way you make God’s word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.’ 14 He called the people to him again and said, 'Listen to me, all of you, and understand. 15 Nothing that goes into someone from outside can make that person unclean; it is the things that come out of someone that make that [person] unclean.

16 Anyone who has ears for listening should listen!’ 17 When he had gone into the house, away from the crowd, his disciples questioned him about the parable. 18 He said to them, 'Even you – don’t you understand? Can’t you see that nothing that goes into someone from outside can make that [person unclean, 19 because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach and passes into the sewer?

20 And he went on, ‘It is what comes out of someone that makes that unclean. 21 For it is from within, from the heart, that [evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these [evil] things come from within and make a [personunclean.’
 
Last edited:
The Gospel for today may shine some light on this topic:

Gospel Reading: Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48
At that time, John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.
 
The Gospel for today may shine some light on this topic:
.
.
.
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
I don’t think anyone here thinks the OP should disown her daughter and granddaughter. And I didn’t get the sense that the OP has any intention of doing so.

But to Catholics, the idea of getting re-baptized makes even less sense than “marrying” someone when you are already married to someone else. It’s a meaningless act at best.

The quote you gave suggests that you think the granddaughter’s second attempt at “baptism” is a “mighty deed” but for those of us who are Catholic it’s a sham deed. We understand that the daughter and granddaughter don’t see it that way but that doesn’t change the fact that we consider what they are doing a huge mistake. We think it is such a big mistake that it would be “teaching a different Gospel” to ignore it.

My heart breaks for the OP. She has a difficult path to walk.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, I was more inclined to read the “whoever is not against us is with us” part.

And I agree, I do feel for the OP. Difficult decision. I just tend to prioritise love of family and to be charitable when posible, unless there is a clear and concise directive from the catholic church prohibiting attendance to these things. I believe there is no clear directive in this case (I may be wrong, but I searched the net and could not find anything. Advice on interpretation, yes, but clear directive none).

I think maintaining a loving peaceful relationship with your family is highly important. So unless it is to go to some evil worship thing….to me we are all Christians. Head of our churches is Jesus Christ.
 
I understand why you would say that. But I am not as strict. I do not see it as a “them” and “us”, I see it as we are all under Jesus Christ, all of us brothers. We Catholics are just the “big” brothers. 😉

We may have our differences, but if we all believe that Jesus is God, that He is our Saviour, to me that is a pretty good start. (note I said to me, after much prayer, and personal internal conflict on other prior issues)

I would not automatically take the fact that there is a second baptism as if the first were deficient, there may be other reasons. Like maybe, it is somehow important to the couple, or whatever other reasons that may have nothing to do with the first being “deficient”.

Ex. Baptism is performed by a lay person in a hospital, as there was danger of death to the child. The child pulls through, and a second baptism is arranged in a proper church with a proper celebration. This does not mean the first was deficient, it simply means the second means something to the couple and their family.

PS. Unless of course the Catholic church takes an official stand and tells us clearly this is not allowed, I will go with prayer and personal discernment to try and see what feels right. 😊
 
Last edited:
Ex. Baptism is performed by a lay person in a hospital, as there was danger of death to the child. The child pulls through, and a second baptism is arranged in a proper church with a proper celebration.
Yet, this would violate the practice of the Catholic Church. In danger of death, it is a very good thing for a lay person to Baptize a person of any age! After that, they tell the parish what was done, the parish records the Baptism in their register.

The priest will then schedule time to anoint the child with the baptismal oils, he may even do a conditional baptism, but there is never a re-baptism.

You can be “not as strict”. As a grandparent, I can be “not as strict” and allow the 15 year old grandkids to drink beers or allow the 13 year old to drive the car. Because I want to be the “not as strict” person does not mean that underage drinking &/or driving are suddenly legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top