Baptism and Confirmation in Another Church

[BeluvdLily]

While growing up I was baptized in the United Church of Christ. I also went through Confirmation Class and was confirmed and then able to receive Communion.

As a RCIA student, I know that when I join the Catholic Church I will not be baptized again. However, no one has ever mentioned confirmation or where or how it comes into play. Does anyone know the details of this and how it works?

Amie

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

BeluvdLily:

While growing up I was baptized in the United Church of Christ. I also went through Confirmation Class and was confirmed and then able to receive Communion.

As a RCIA student, I know that when I join the Catholic Church I will not be baptized again. However, no one has ever mentioned confirmation or where or how it comes into play. Does anyone know the details of this and how it works?

Amie

Baptism when properly administered by anyone with the intent to Baptize is valid and cannot be repeated.

Confirmation is a separate Sacrament from Baptism.
Under normal circumstances Confirmation requires the authority of a validly Ordained Bishop in apostolic succession. A Bishop may when necessary authorize a validly Ordained priest to Confirm a specific person or group of persons on his behalf.

Holy Communion is only valid when a validly Ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

BeluvdLily:

While growing up I was baptized in the United Church of Christ. I also went through Confirmation Class and was confirmed and then able to receive Communion.

As a RCIA student, I know that when I join the Catholic Church I will not be baptized again. However, no one has ever mentioned confirmation or where or how it comes into play. Does anyone know the details of this and how it works?

Amie

You will have to be confirmed again. Usually that happens at the Easter Vigil (although it can happen at a different time i.e. Mine was at Pentecost).

PF

 

[bhlincoln]

BeluvdLily:

While growing up I was baptized in the United Church of Christ. I also went through Confirmation Class and was confirmed and then able to receive Communion.

As a RCIA student, I know that when I join the Catholic Church I will not be baptized again. However, no one has ever mentioned confirmation or where or how it comes into play. Does anyone know the details of this and how it works?

Amie

You should seek to be conditionally baptized to be safe. You can do some research on “conditional baptism” and there is plenty of information on it. A priest basically says “if you are not baptized, you are now baptised” while reapplying the Sacrament. There is also conditional Confirmation in case the Sacrament was not applied appropriately. If you received the Sacrament outside the Catholic Church then any Sacrament you received was NOT received properly. Request conditional Baptism and Confirmation to be safe…

BH
www.protestanterrors.com

 

[Sean_O_L]

bhlincoln wrote:

If you received the Sacrament outside the Catholic Church then any

Sacrament you received was NOT received properly.
This is incorrect.

First of all, there is a difference between administering and receiving. As the question is about the Sacrament of Baptism – the normal administration of the Sacrament is by an approved minister (even including an authorized lay person CCC 903) of the Church. However, in certain circumstances, it may be administered by anyone [CCC1256](Protestant, Jew or agnostic) – provided that the Form, Matter and Intention of the person administering the Sacrament is in accordance with the Church’s requirements. In these circumstances, the Sacrament IS properly administered.

The distinguished Rev. Heribert Jone, O.F.M., Cap., J.C.D. writing in his “MORAL THEOLOGY” (TAN Books, 1993) in 1961 explains:

“451.b)… Accordingly, Baptism is valid if administered by a Jewish physician who acts with the intention of doing what the Church does, or as Christians do…

“Baptism, as conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Baptists and the Methodists, as far as the intention of the minister is concerned, is to be presumed valid when rendering matrimonial decisions, according to the Holy Office (AAS 41-650). Some other sects, too, may confer Baptism validly, but the Holy See was only asked concerning these five.”
And, of course, since then the Holy See has been “asked” about the Baptisms of many of those “other” sects; a list of valid and invalid Baptisms has been provided elsewhere in “Catholic Answers”, but I repeat the link now:
A list of such Baptisms was provided at Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem’s “100% Catholic Forum” at
holyjoe.net/phpBB2_new/viewtopic.php?t=990

Secondly, the Sacrament of Baptism IS properly received by an infant when the intention of the parents is to have the child Baptized. It is also properly received by an adult when that person expresses the desire to be Baptized and is so Baptized in the manner prescribed by the Church.

Thirdly, similarly, the Sacrament of Marriage IS also properly administered and received and is a “marriage covenant” between “a baptized [Catholic and/or Protestant. S.O.L.] man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent…” CCC 1625.

By the way, inasmuch as you, bhlincoln, only have the 1917 Code of Canon Law on site, and you describe yourself as “Traditional Catholic”, would you please disclose whether you adhere to the Indult, Independent or SSPX? Furthermore, do you acknowledge the legitimacy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[thistle]

WanderAimlessly:

You will have to be confirmed again. Usually that happens at the Easter Vigil (although it can happen at a different time i.e. Mine was at Pentecost).

PF

You are right. I was a baptised Methodist before joining the Catholic Church after going through the RCIA program. No need for a second baptism, only the Confirmation is needed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Sean O L:

Secondly, the Sacrament of Baptism IS properly received by an infant when the intention of the parents is to have the child Baptized.

The Sacrament of Baptism is in no way dependent on the intention of the parents.

 

[bhlincoln]

Sean O L:

bhlincoln wrote:

This is incorrect.

First of all, there is a difference between administering and receiving. As the question is about the Sacrament of Baptism – the normal administration of the Sacrament is by an approved minister (even including an authorized lay person CCC 903) of the Church. However, in certain circumstances, it may be administered by anyone [CCC1256](Protestant, Jew or agnostic) – provided that the Form, Matter and Intention of the person administering the Sacrament is in accordance with the Church’s requirements. In these circumstances, the Sacrament IS properly administered.

Thanks for clearing that up, I believe I may have mistated as well on stating “all” Sacraments being invalid outside the Church. Baptism is an exception. However the primary point I was trying to make was that to be safe, if there is the slightest doubt, one should always receive the Sacrament again conditionally if they can possibly do so.

Thanks,
BH

 

[Sean_O_L]

Br. Rich wrote:

The Sacrament of Baptism is in no way dependent on the intention of the parents.

Many thanks for the correction, Br. Rich. A more appropriate word may have been “Faith” - for that is what is the required response from the parent or the infant’s sponsor - and, hopefully that is what the parents genuinely intend for the infant; but “consent” IS the required term!

Fr. Jone deals follows with

" 476…2.b) Children of non-Catholic parents…

b) Apart from the danger of death such children may be baptized if their Catholic education is assured and the consent of the father or mother, grandfather or grandmother or guardian is had, or if there is no one who has parental authority over the child or who can exercise such authority." (C. 750).

“If the Catholic education of the child is not assured baptism is forbidden even if the parents request it…”
“MORAL THEOLOGY” pp. 328-9)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church" is not as explicit – nor is the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

“Can. 864 Every unbaptised person, and only such a person, can

be baptised.”
Yet, there are some conditions, including:

“Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully

it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If the hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.”
Canon 869 §1 provides for conditional baptism in the event of doubt as to valid Baptism.

§2 Deals with doubt as to validity on the grounds of matter or form “or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister.”

Notwithstanding any of the above Canons 870 and 871 respectively deal with the baptism of abandoned infant or a foundling, and aborted foetuses (if alive).

So! What I have in mind is a situation where “consent” is given by a person where a non-Catholic party feigned baptism in order to marry a Catholic – as outlined, for example, in the decision of the Rota, 22 Dec. 1954, and as recorded in “The Canon Law Digest”, Vol IV, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., LL.B., S.T.D. and James J. O’Connor, S.J., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.D., pp. 322-3.

The extension of that decision would be, I think, interesting in the event that the “consent” and expectation of the infant receiving a Catholic upbringing was depended upon on the consent of such a person ?

The point is that even highly qualified persons have had to put a Dubium (doubt) on a point of the (1917) Code of Canon Law in order to clarify situations - and, as in civil Law - there is always a Lawyer who will strongly represent his clients case: and, as always, one wins and one looses: one is right and one is wrong. In any event, it all makes for fascinating reading.

What do you think?

 

[Sean_O_L]

bhlincoln wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up, I believe I may have mistated as well on stating “all” Sacraments being invalid outside the Church. Baptism is an exception. However the primary point I was trying to make was that to be safe, if there is the slightest doubt, one should always receive the Sacrament again conditionally if they can possibly do so

No probs - except for Br. Rich’s correction, and for the fact that Sacramental Marriage is also a an exception.

 

[puzzleannie]

bhlincoln:

You should seek to be conditionally baptized to be safe. You can do some research on “conditional baptism” and there is plenty of information on it. A priest basically says “if you are not baptized, you are now baptised” while reapplying the Sacrament. There is also conditional Confirmation in case the Sacrament was not applied appropriately. If you received the Sacrament outside the Catholic Church then any Sacrament you received was NOT received properly. Request conditional Baptism and Confirmation to be safe…

BH
www.protestanterrors.com

poster is misinformed.
you do not “seek conditional baptism.” the priest who directs your preparation for admission into the Catholic Church determines after hearing the facts of your baptism from you and receiving proof, in consultation with his bishop, if the baptism was valid. He will decide if a conditional baptism is warranted. there is no such thing as conditional Confirmation. Confirmation is the perogative of the bishop, a successor to the apostles, or his designate, of the particular church (diocese) you are joining. You will make a profession of faith, after a due period of preparation so that you may do so with full understanding of your promise, and be confirmed, then receive first holy communion at the same time, which will constitute your initiation into full communion with the Catholic Church.