Baptism And Marriage

[dal11]

I’m trying to find out the theoligy behind something. We as Catholics believe protestants have the sacraments of baptism and marriage because these are two that dosen’t need holy orders for the sacrement to take place. So if a protestant converts they don’t have to be rebaptised or remarried. O.K. here’s the question. I, as a catholic if I go out and break the rules of baptism, meaning I go baptise someone in the name of the trinity. That was illicit for me to do that, but it still a valid baptism. The sacrament took effect. Every thing I’ve read about marriage though says if I do the same thing it is illicit and invalid. Why is this if the priest himself dosen’t give the sacrament. You give it to each other.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I’m trying to find out the theoligy behind something. We as Catholics believe protestants have the sacraments of baptism and marriage because these are two that dosen’t need holy orders for the sacrement to take place. So if a protestant converts they don’t have to be rebaptised or remarried. O.K. here’s the question. I, as a catholic if I go out and break the rules of baptism, meaning I go baptise someone in the name of the trinity. That was illicit for me to do that, but it still a valid baptism. The sacrament took effect. Every thing I’ve read about marriage though says if I do the same thing it is illicit and invalid. Why is this if the priest himself dosen’t give the sacrament. You give it to each other.

Okay, your underlying (and unwritten premise) is part of the problem. Baptism may be administered by anyone becuase it is essential to salvation. Thus, the early Church decided that even hertics may baptize validly.

Marriage, on the other hand, is a different issue. Marriage is not necessary for salvation. Thus, the Church has the right to regulate marriage for Catholics who are bound by canonical laws. Non-catholics, of course, are not bound by laws made specifically for Catholics and, as a result, any marriage by non-catholics that is considered legal and valid would be considered legal and valid by the Catholic Church, even after the conversion of one or both parties to the marrage.

So the problem is not who the minister of the sacrament it, but rather of the juridic (legal) requirements for Catholics (not to mention the legal requirements for marriage – unless you are a licensed minister of justice of the peace it is unlikely that you could legall perform such a marriage in any case).

Deacon Ed

 

[dal11]

Thanks for your response. By the way, I don’t plan on doing this or anything. It’s just a question that popped into my head today.

 

[roblrich]

Baptism may be administered by anyone becuase it is essential to salvation. Thus, the early Church decided that even hertics may baptize validly.

Deacon Ed

The Church no longer`recognizes baptisms from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, even though their baptism ritual is very strict and the proper words are said, “I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”.

 

[maternus]

The Church no longer`recognizes baptisms from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, even though their baptism ritual is very strict and the proper words are said, “I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”.

I don’t know when they ever did. I converted to Catholicism 19 years ago and had to be baptized in the Catholic Church b/c I had only ever been baptized LDS.

 

[1ke]

The Church no longer`recognizes baptisms from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, even though their baptism ritual is very strict and the proper words are said, “I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”.

That is because they do not intend what the Church intends when they baptize. That is also part of the requirement for valid baptism. They do not accept the Trinity, even though they say the words they apply an entirely different meaning to them. Only Trinitarian baptism is valid.