An Over-Enthusiasm for Water

[Tomyris]

Catholics baptize once and only once, but there may be conditional baptism, if there is any question about it. Ok. I am curious about the sacramental theology concerning the
following scenarios that I have heard of:

1. Someone baptized as an infant in a Catholic church gets rebaptized as an adult in a Protestant church, because of various reasons that made them think the baptism was invalid. Would there be valid reasons for a Catholic infant baptism to be invalid, and if so,what are they? Would such a person be sinning? Reasons I have heard include
2. that they have come to believe in believer’s baptism only, and so they have not yet really been baptized,
3. they were not raised as Catholic, meaning the condition of infant baptism was not met (for example, their parents never intended to raise them as Catholics, but got them baptized simply to get Grandma to quit nagging), or
4. that the Catholic Church’s baptism is ineffective because their sacraments are ineffective.

I don’t want this thread to turn into a discussion of their reasons, but what would actually be valid reasons, if any, for a rebaptism. Those are real reasons ex-Catholics are getting re-baptized in Protestant churches currently that I have heard from people personally. I know the Catholic church believes that once you are Catholic you are always Catholic. I would think 1 and 3 indicate that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they are more than likely in mortal sin. If so, is there a way they could not be?

Neither do I want to turn this into a critique of the Protestants doing these things or the background of the Protestant sacramental theologies at play. I would like to know the Catholic position on the specifics of what they are doing, and going further only as necessary if something is unclear. I don’t know the sacramental theology, if there is much, behind some of these things.

1. There are some churches that baptize everyone when they become a member by immersion, regardless of how many times someone has been baptized in churches before, even in the same denomination, so if they move a lot, they may wind up getting baptized twenty times or more over the course of their life. They give absolutely no thought to Catholic theology on it. Are they sinning or is this an error that does not rise to the level of being sin?
2. Athos baptizes everyone joining, I have been told, even if you were previously baptized as an Orthodox Christian. In Catholic eyes are they sinning?
3. There was a Christian, Pentecostal revivalist some years ago who was baptizing at his revivals. Hundreds if not thousands of already baptized Christians and even some pastors got rebaptized. Were they sinning? Some were undoubtedly baptized as Catholics as infants. I talked to one who was so baptized. She was baptized at one of these revivals because “it was a real move of the Holy Spirit, and now I really know I am a member of the body of Christ, and that was a real blessing” She had already been baptized as an adult by immersion, so this was at least her third baptism. Or maybe she had one when she was an infant, and just thoroughly wet two other times. She was also willing to go and do it again if he came back into town with his tank.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

In # 1, none of those things would invalidate an already valid infant baptism. Such simply can’t happen (a valid sacrament becoming invalid).

In 2-4, I don’t think the Church would consider these sins, rather just an ignorance of scripture and how the Church believes that baptism was intended to be applied. (Illicit action but not sinful, unless a Catholic intentionally participated in one of these baptisms fully knowing Church teaching as a deliberate act of disobedience/defiance.)

 

[Crusaderbear]

At every baptism in my church, they reaffirm the attendees baptismal vows and sprinkle the crowd with water…so I would consider any catholic services a reaffirmation. I would avoid a protestant service/reaffirmetion in case they add any caveats that might go against catholic teachings. I am not enough of an expert to recognize any of these caveats, so. better safe than sorry.

This is even though the catholic church recognizes other christian baptisms all the time.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello Tomyris.

With any Sacrament there is necessary . . . .

• Valid form
• Valid matter
• Valid intention
• Valid minister of the Sacrament

There must be no “impediments”.

---

In the case of Baptism . . .

The valid minister is ordinarily a Priest (but extra-ordinarily anyone else wanting to Baptize CAN do so if need arises.)

Valid intention means they are intending what the Church intends.

Valid matter is “true and natural water”. (For example: Can be fresh water or ocean water. Cannot be wine for instance.).

Valid form (“I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Is one example. The Eastern Rites MAY or MAY NOT have some other formula (form) that I am not aware of?).

---

If all those are carried out, it would be a sacrilege to RE-Baptize.

If NOT all those are carried out, the person in question would never have been Baptized (validly). This non-Baptized person CAN be Baptized.

If all those are carried out, but you are NOT SURE, than the Priest may carry out a “conditional Baptism.”

---

(My answer does not go into Baptism of desire or blood.)

A person cannot have “impediments”.

An “impediment” would be “against their will” for example in the case of an adult Baptism.

Babies are not “for” or “against” Baptism (so no impediment) and their parents have God-given authority to speak on behalf of the Child (with certain promises usually rendered).

Concerning individuals who are sinning or not, there is morality in the OBJECTIVE ORDER.

Objectively speaking, Re-Baptism is wrong.

But there is morality in the SUBJECTIVE ORDER too. One person may be unaware of their sin, another person MAY be aware but think he/she is going to Re-Baptize anyway.

Only God can judge taking both the objective and subjective perfectly and applying it all perfectly. (This is perfect)

We can judge objective dimensions of acts.

The person carrying out an action of their own, can judge their own subjective dimension though (“If we judge ourselves truly we will not be judged” – a “self-examination” although this is imperfect).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

---

From CUF (with minor formatting changes by me) . . .

What Must Be Done For A Valid Baptism?

CUF

ISSUE: What does the Catholic Church require for valid baptism?

RESPONSE: For valid baptism to occur, the Catholic Church requires proper matter, form and intention. The proper matter is “true and natural water.”

The proper form requires the minister to pour, completely immerse in, or sprinkle water upon the candidate, while saying the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The minister of baptism must intend to baptize as the Church intends.[1]

DISCUSSION: Scripture affirms the necessity of using water and the Trinitarian Formula for baptism (cf. Ez. 36:25; Mt. 28:19; Jn. 3:5).

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) and the Rite of Baptism for Children (RCIC) provide the norms for lawful baptism in the Catholic Church. These rites allow for two options in the method: immersion or the pouring of water.

If a candidate is baptized by immersion, “The celebrant, immersing the candidate’s whole body or head three times, baptizes the candidate in the name of the Trinity.”[2] If a child is baptized by pouring, “The celebrant, taking baptismal water and pouring it three times on the candidate’s bowed head, baptizes the candidate in the name of the Trinity.”[3] If water is not poured or sprinkled on the head, the baptism would be valid, but illicit; i.e., it would be an authentic baptism but done in a way that deviates from the form prescribed by the Church.

Provided the necessary matter, form and intention are present, the Catholic Church recognizes as valid all baptisms that occur outside her authority or in extraordinary circumstances.

The use of anything other than true water renders the baptism invalid. The substitution of different names in place of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” in part or in whole, renders the baptism invalid.[4] For example, it is invalid to replace . . .

The rest of the article can be found here

cuf.org/2004/04/what-must-be-done-for-a-valid-baptism/

 

[po18guy]

God’s grace flows through the Sacrament. Period.

What you have heard from “ex-Catholics” confirms only that they knew little to nothing about their faith. That has zero effect on the grace already conferred by the Sacrament.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Hello Tomyris.

With any Sacrament there is necessary . . . .

• Valid form
• Valid matter
• Valid intention
• Valid minister of the Sacrament

There must be no “impediments”.

---

In the case of Baptism . . .

The valid minister is ordinarily a Priest (but extra-ordinarily anyone else wanting to Baptize CAN do so if need arises.)

Valid intention means they are intending what the Church intends.

Valid matter is “true and natural water”. (For example: Can be fresh water or ocean water. Cannot be wine for instance.).

Valid form (“I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Is one example. The Eastern Rites MAY or MAY NOT have some other formula (form) that I am not aware of?).

---

If all those are carried out, it would be a sacrilege to RE-Baptize.

If NOT all those are carried out, the person in question would never have been Baptized (validly). This non-Baptized person CAN be Baptized.

If all those are carried out, but you are NOT SURE, than the Priest may carry out a “conditional Baptism.”

---

(My answer does not go into Baptism of desire or blood.)

A person cannot have “impediments”.

An “impediment” would be “against their will” for example in the case of an adult Baptism.

Babies are not “for” or “against” Baptism (so no impediment) and their parents have God-given authority to speak on behalf of the Child (with certain promises usually rendered).

Concerning individuals who are sinning or not, there is morality in the OBJECTIVE ORDER.

Objectively speaking, Re-Baptism is wrong.

But there is morality in the SUBJECTIVE ORDER too. One person may be unaware of their sin, another person MAY be aware but think he/she is going to Re-Baptize anyway.

Only God can judge taking both the objective and subjective perfectly and applying it all perfectly. (This is perfect)

We can judge objective dimensions of acts.

The person carrying out an action of their own, can judge their own subjective dimension though (“If we judge ourselves truly we will not be judged” – a “self-examination” although this is imperfect).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

---

From CUF (with minor formatting changes by me) . . .

The rest of the article can be found here

cuf.org/2004/04/what-must-be-done-for-a-valid-baptism/

I believe Canon 861.1 also specifies that a Deacon is an ordinary minister of Baptism.

 

[Tomyris]

Very interesting.

Let’s say your parents were pathological liars who told you that you were baptized as an infant, but you weren’t, and later you left the Catholic Church as a young teen and wound up as an adult at Uncle Joe’s Hallelujah Trinity Tabernacle. Uncle Joe baptizes you.

Uncle Joe has done the right thing.

I read the article and up until now I had thought sprinkling was normative. I was quite surprised at seeing an immersion baptism in a Catholic Church, and I guessed it was just an option. If I read the article correctly pouring and immersion are normative, sprinkling may be done.

 

[Kielbasi]

following scenarios that I have heard of:

1. Someone baptized as an infant in a Catholic church gets rebaptized as an adult in a Protestant church, because of various reasons that made them think the baptism was invalid. Would there be valid reasons for a Catholic infant baptism to be invalid, and if so,what are they? Would such a person be sinning? Reasons I have heard include
   
   1) that they have come to believe in believer’s baptism only, and so they have not yet really been baptized,
   .
   ​

​

Our protestant friends , particularly those of the evangelical persuasion, don’t see baptism as “valid” or “invalid”, and just don’t believe that the sacrament is in any way necessary for salvation.

In fact, they often refer to baptism as an “ordinance”, not a sacrament at all- something done because it was ordered in Scripture, for all believers.​

 

[Cathoholic]

I believe Canon 861.1 also specifies that a Deacon is an ordinary minister of Baptism.

Yes.

 

[Horton]

Very interesting.

Let’s say your parents were pathological liars who told you that you were baptized as an infant, but you weren’t, and later you left the Catholic Church as a young teen and wound up as an adult at Uncle Joe’s Hallelujah Trinity Tabernacle. Uncle Joe baptizes you.

Uncle Joe has done the right thing.

I read the article and up until now I had thought sprinkling was normative. I was quite surprised at seeing an immersion baptism in a Catholic Church, and I guessed it was just an option. If I read the article correctly pouring and immersion are normative, sprinkling may be done.

You seem to want to make this a gotcha question. Others have posted on what makes a valid baptism. If a person is baptized validly, that person is baptized period.

In your scenario above, disregarding the pathological part, if Uncle Joe’s Hallelujah Trinity Tabernacle used the proper form and matter it is a valid baptism. Whether by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion it is correct.

 

[Tomyris]

You seem to want to make this a gotcha question.

Not at all. What gave you that impression?

 

[Horton]

Not at all. What gave you that impression?

Just a few sentences…

Would such a person be sinning? Reasons I have heard include

1. that they have come to believe in believer’s baptism only, and so they have not yet really been baptized,
2. they were not raised as Catholic, meaning the condition of infant baptism was not met (for example, their parents never intended to raise them as Catholics, but got them baptized simply to get Grandma to quit nagging), or
3. **that the Catholic Church’s baptism is ineffective because their sacraments are ineffective.
   **

I would think 1 and 3 indicate that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they are more than likely in mortal sin. If so, is there a way they could not be?

Let’s say your parents **were pathological liars **who told you that you were baptized as an infant, but you weren’t, and later you left the Catholic Church

I read the article and up until now I had thought sprinkling was normative. I was quite surprised at seeing an immersion baptism in a Catholic Church, and I guessed it was just an option. If I read the article correctly pouring and immersion are normative, sprinkling may be done

You were given great answers on what makes a baptism valid, that lack of baptism is not sinful in any way, and then once given those great answers, you do your best to come up with some way in which a Catholic baptism is wrong, such as how the water is used.

I was baptized as an infant in a protestant church. It was done by sprinkling as I was only three weeks old. It had the proper form, matter, intent, and minister. When I joined the Catholic Church my baptism was valid.

 

[Gorgias]

Not at all. What gave you that impression?

The way you phrased the questions, with the implication of “sin”. From the Catholic perspective, that’s just, well… weird?

So: no, an attempted ‘re-baptism’ isn’t sinful; it’s just mistaken and lacks efficacy.

There are things that baptized Catholics can do that are sinful, particularly in the context of leaving the practice of the faith and joining other sorts of faith communities. However, the physical act of being sprinkled (or immersed) with water is not one of them.

Would there be valid reasons for a Catholic infant baptism to be invalid

None of the cases you provide imply invalid baptism (from a Catholic perspective). Moreover, the implication of “probable mortal sin” doesn’t hold up, since that determination depends, among other things, on “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent.” A Catholic who is mistaken about sacramental theology doesn’t possess “full knowledge,” per se.

I know the Catholic church believes that once you are Catholic you are always Catholic.

More to the point in the context of this discussion, the relevant point is “once baptized, always baptized.”

 

[Brassring]

A person who was baptized Catholic as an infant won’t get baptized protestant when they are older. They’ll just get wet.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I didn’t mean it as a gotcha question. I don’t even know how it could be taken that way and I am surprised it was.

But my questions were answered,and I thank you all.

 

[Tomyris]

In case it helps, there are ex-Catholics who get re-baptized and then deal with a great deal of guilt about it later, sometimes years later. So what you have posted here could be very helpful to someone. I was thinking of them when I started this thread.