Atheists and other Non-Christians, have you baptized your Christian friends?

[Mannyfit75]

I have a question for atheists, Pagans, Muslim, Jews, and other Non-believers. Have you ever baptized a person who desire to become a Christian? Even though, you don’t profess a Christian faith?

 

[KarenNC]

I have a question for atheists, Pagans, Muslim, Jews, and other Non-believers. Have you ever baptized a person who desire to become a Christian? Even though, you don’t profess a Christian faith?

Why in the world would anyone ask someone who was not a Christian to baptize them as a Christian?

 

[AgnosTheist]

huh?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why in the world would anyone ask someone who was not a Christian to baptize them as a Christian?

In certain situations, baptism maybe become necessary. I was listening to Fr. Corapi’s teaching on Jesus Christ on Baptism. For example, suppose a Christian man who has an atheist wife and this Christian man is dying. He has a new born son, and he desires his son to be baptized.

 

[KarenNC]

In certain situations, baptism maybe become necessary. I was listening to Fr. Corapi’s teaching on Jesus Christ on Baptism. For example, suppose a Christian man who has an atheist wife and this Christian man is dying. He has a new born son, and he desires his son to be baptized.

This is actually a rather different question than you asked initially. The newborn son cannot ask on his own behalf to be baptized.

Why would the Christian man not baptize his son himself or ask someone else in the situation who was Christian (nurse, doctor, janitor, hospital chaplain, etc) to do so in his stead (presuming his wife agrees to it, as it is also her son, who she will be raising)? If the wife is in agreement, I would imagine she would seek out an appropriate person to administer the baptism. Surely even a lay Christian is preferable as an agent of baptism than a non-Christian? Are they presumed to be on a desert island where there are no other Christians about?

Do you believe that a non-Christian can administer a valid Christian baptism? I would think that a Catholic would see that a baptism of desire was more legitimate than a baptism administered by a non-Christian (but I may be wrong on that one).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do Mormons count?

yes

 

[Publisher]

As a Quaker elder, I have been asked to baptize my niece. I declined and instructed my sister I would not be comfortable doing so. I suggested she seek someone who is…she joined the Nazarene church and she and her daughter were baptized by the Nazarene minister.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

It is my understanding the to be valid the Baptism must be preformed by a priest unless due to pending death that is not possible.

 

[ralphinal]

It is my understanding the to be valid the Baptism must be preformed by a priest unless due to pending death that is not possible.

Not exactly. A Baptism is valid if it is Trinitarian in nature and uses water. Trinitarian means that they are baptised “In the Name of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Anyone at all can baptise, even a non-Christian. The water does not have to be holy, but it must be able to flow over the head.

now, some of you ask why a non-Christian would do this? It is not that difficult. The example is given of someone who is atheist presented in a situation where they know that the parents of a child want the child baptised but they are not able to do it while the child is in imminant danger of death. At one time, this would happen in delivery rooms if the baby was close to death. One of the nurses, who may or may not be Christian, would baptise the baby.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Not exactly. A Baptism is valid if it is Trinitarian in nature and uses water. Trinitarian means that they are baptised “In the Name of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Anyone at all can baptise, even a non-Christian. The water does not have to be holy, but it must be able to flow over the head.

now, some of you ask why a non-Christian would do this? It is not that difficult. The example is given of someone who is atheist presented in a situation where they know that the parents of a child want the child baptised but they are not able to do it while the child is in imminant danger of death. At one time, this would happen in delivery rooms if the baby was close to death. One of the nurses, who may or may not be Christian, would baptise the baby.

Take from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia :

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister.
n case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[KarenNC]

The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament.

Fascinating. I haven’t encountered this before. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? It seems an incredibly odd restriction. After all, who, presumably, would have the most sincere desire and intent for the child to be legitimately baptized into the faith of its parents other than its parents? Why would a random (perhaps non-Christian) bum on the street be preferable or give a more valid baptism?

 

[KarenNC]

In that case, it happens all the time.

Are you speaking of the posthumous baptisms? I understand that is the driving force behind the push for genealogical research in the Mormon Church.

 

[KarenNC]

If this were true, then Mormon baptisms would be valid (and my RCIA experience would be completely different). But they’re not, so I get to be baptized a second time.

Yes, I believe most Christian churches baptize in the name of the Trinity, so on that basis it seems odd that the Roman Catholic Church wouldn’t accept the baptism performed by Protestants, if the person doesn’t need to be what they consider sacramentally valid clergy. I gather from this post that they do not (having never sought baptism myself in the Catholic Church).

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Fascinating. I haven’t encountered this before. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? It seems an incredibly odd restriction. After all, who, presumably, would have the most sincere desire and intent for the child to be legitimately baptized into the faith of its parents other than its parents? Why would a random (perhaps non-Christian) bum on the street be preferable or give a more valid baptism?

I really have no Idea and could find no explanation. It could be that under the circumstances that the parents may not be in the best frame of mind. The child would be on the verge of death.

Peace in the Lord.

Scott

 

[KarenNC]

I really have no Idea and could find no explanation. It could be that under the circumstances that the parents may not be in the best frame of mind. The child would be on the verge of death.

I would think that would serve only to intensify the intention.

 

[cheddarsox]

I would think that would serve only to intensify the intention.

Intention has nothing to do with it. The rite is either valid, because the proper form is used, or invalid because the proper form is not used. God has all the power, and will confer grace based on form, not intent…though in a regular baptism, the intent of the parents and godparents is asked for.

I guess, if the proper form is used, it implys the intent is there, or why go through the motion?

anyway, that is what I was taught while I was a Catholic. We were taught, in grade school how to baptize in case of an emergency. And taught that we should only do so if we were sure the person was going to die, because if we baptized them, we were accountable to see that they received instruction in the faith…were they to live.

which brings me to this interesting story of which I just became aware.

I am a pantheist, and my children are not baptized. My Catholic brother was trying to round up some members of my family or origin to come to our home…750 miles away and baptize my kids (18, 16 and 13 at the time) against mine and their will.

Fortunately, none of them were interested in his crusade, and he, being blind and rather small, was unable to chase down, my sons, who are over six feet tall and confer the sacrament upon them himself.

When they were babies, he was not quite so Catholic, and thus uninclined to make such efforts on their behalf. I am not sure if he understands that were he to baptize them, it is up to him to see that they receive the proper instruction. That would be difficult from so far a distance.

If my children ever choose baptism, I will be there, supporting and celebrating their choice with them. But as a former Catholic, now pantheist, I did not choose to have them baptized.

 

[cheddarsox]

Yes, I believe most Christian churches baptize in the name of the Trinity, so on that basis it seems odd that the Roman Catholic Church wouldn’t accept the baptism performed by Protestants, if the person doesn’t need to be what they consider sacramentally valid clergy. I gather from this post that they do not (having never sought baptism myself in the Catholic Church).

Most Protestant baptisms are considered valid, since most of them use the trinitarian form. If someone converts to Catholicism, they are asked to bring in their baptism certificate from the other church, it is inspected and the priest determines if the original baptism was valid or not, by considering the form used by that denomination.

It is not allowed in the RCC to rebaptise someone who has already been baptised validly. If there is a question whether someone was validly baptised, a provisional baptism is given, which will validly baptise them IF the original one was not valid, but is not to be considered a rebaptism, if the first was valid.

 

[ralphinal]

Except in the case of Mormon baptisms, where criteria other than form seems to be used to exclude them. Not that I’m complaining or anything. I kind of like the idea of being re-baptized Catholic.

I think that one of the problems with Mormon Baptism is that it is not Triniterian in nature. Mormons do not accept the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity.

 

[ralphinal]

On the contrary, I think that the problem is that some people responsible for making administrative decisions have no clue what’s going on. I don’t really mind, though.

*"Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—

"The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

“Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.”*

- Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20:72-74​

“Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.”

- Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20:28​

If this posting is accurate, why do Mormons on this board and others deny the Trinity? Why do Mormons on this board and others teach that Jesus is brother to Satan?

 

[ralphinal]

Oh my.

From the website that you posted
[QUOTEOn the basis of knowledge prompted by the Holy Ghost, we can know that the nature of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, as taught by the Bible and as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, is true. Those who have received their understanding about God from errant traditional Christianity need no longer struggle with that confused and confusing doctrine. The Prophet’s inspired declarations about the Godhead are in total agreement with the biblical evidence that Jesus and the Father have distinct, material bodies]

and

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.

Now, from EWTN.com

Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized

According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.

I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

con’t