Baptism not needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CollegeKid

Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86679

If you read the thread for the link presented above, you’ll see that Father Serpa told a woman her unbaptized husband probably doesn’t need to be baptized because he’s already had a baptism by desire after being confirmed in the Church and receiving the Eucharist (the husband mistakenly thought he had been normatively baptized with water as an infant, later found out he’d only been “dedicated” in his baptist church). I found this alarming. Does Father Serpa’s answer sound correct to you guys?

Moderator note: The reply by Father Serpa was edited subsequent to this post. The edited text is quoted in the following post.
 
CollegeKid said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86679

If you read the thread for the link presented above, you’ll see that Father Serpa told a woman her unbaptized husband probably doesn’t need to be baptized because he’s already had a baptism by desire after being confirmed in the Church and receiving the Eucharist (the husband mistakenly thought he had been normatively baptized with water as an infant, later found out he’d only been “dedicated” in his baptist church). I found this alarming. Does Father Serpa’s answer sound correct to you guys?
Click to expand...

No, it does not sound correct.

Usually if there is an uncertainty, a priest will give a conditional baptism. The baptism of desire only applies to those who are unable to obtain one.

hurst
 
:confused: I am surprised at Fr. Serpa’s response (I’m a card-carrying Fr. Serpa groupie). Where baptism is impossible, baptism of desire might apply but what would prevent a person from following through with a baptism when a situation like this comes to light? Baptism of desire is a great thing, but does it take the place of water baptism when there is no impediment?
 
In all fairness to Father Serpa, he did say that the husband could get a conditional baptism. But that’s the thing-could get an additional baptism? I would think it would be needs to get a conditional baptism.
 
CollegeKid said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86679

If you read the thread for the link presented above, you’ll see that Father Serpa told a woman her unbaptized husband probably doesn’t need to be baptized because he’s already had a baptism by desire after being confirmed in the Church and receiving the Eucharist (the husband mistakenly thought he had been normatively baptized with water as an infant, later found out he’d only been “dedicated” in his baptist church). I found this alarming. Does Father Serpa’s answer sound correct to you guys?
Click to expand...

No of course not since Baptism is the Doorway to the other Sacraments. Without baptism no other Sacraments can be received validly. He should be conditionally Baptized. The Sacrament of Confirmation will revive and he will receive the Graces of Confirmation at the moment of his Baptism. He will then begin receiving the Graces from receiving the Eucharist at his next Holy Communion.
 
mercygate said:
:confused: I am surprised at Fr. Serpa’s response (I’m a card-carrying Fr. Serpa groupie). Where baptism is impossible, baptism of desire might apply but what would prevent a person from following through with a baptism when a situation like this comes to light? Baptism of desire is a great thing, but does it take the place of water baptism when there is no impediment?
Click to expand...

Baptism of Desire is NOT equal to Sacramental Baptism. It is generally held that Baptism of Desire supplies the Grace of Baptism without the Sacramental Mark of Baptism.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
No of course not since Baptism is the Doorway to the other Sacraments. Without baptism no other Sacraments can be received validly. He should be conditionally Baptized. The Sacrament of Confirmation will revive and he will receive the Graces of Confirmation at the moment of his Baptism. He will then begin receiving the Graces from receiving the Eucharist at his next Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
I thought that if one is not validly Baptised, then one can not validly get Confirmed.

So would this guy need to receive Confirmation again? Would he be allowed to receive it again?
 
40.png
GoLatin:
I thought that if one is not validly Baptised, then one can not validly get Confirmed.

So would this guy need to receive Confirmation again? Would he be allowed to receive it again?
Click to expand...
If he was not baptized, then the matter for the sacrament of Confirmation (a baptized Christian) was lacking, and it was to no effect. So, yes, he’d have to be ‘re-confirmed’ in a sense, but it wouldn’t be a duplication as the first one wouldn’t have been effectual. (I think, but I don’t really know for sure here. Brother Rich, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
 
40.png
GoLatin:
I thought that if one is not validly Baptised, then one can not validly get Confirmed.

So would this guy need to receive Confirmation again? Would he be allowed to receive it again?
Click to expand...
No. The Sacrament of Confirmation was celebrated validly but the Grace is impeded because of the lack of Baptism. As soon as Baptism is received the grace of Baptism is applied.
 
40.png
RobNY:
If he was not baptized, then the matter for the sacrament of Confirmation (a baptized Christian) was lacking, and it was to no effect. So, yes, he’d have to be ‘re-confirmed’ in a sense, but it wouldn’t be a duplication as the first one wouldn’t have been effectual. (I think, but I don’t really know for sure here. Brother Rich, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Click to expand...
A “Baptized Christian” is the subject of the Sacrament of Confirmation. The “Matter” of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the laying on of hands by the authority of a Bishop.
 
Fr. Serpa is only human and may have deeper insight into the specifics of the husbands situation, like maybe a fear of water.

so, give the guy some grace already 🙂
 
Br. Rich SFO, I believe the person would have to recieve another conditional confirmation after being conditionally baptized…because the character of Confirmation necessarily presupposes the baptismal character.

It is true that if one recieves confirmation (or ordination, or marriage) in the state of Mortal Sin than one merely needs to go to confession and the graces will revive because even in mortal sin the character will still be validly imprinted on the soul (or in the case of marriage, the bond will still bind the couple before the eyes of God), it is only the graces that were impeded…as they are every time we mortally sin…but if one is not baptized, the soul cannot recieve the character either, and so the they do not recieve the sacrament in anyway. It cannot put the sacrament “on hold” because without baptism it cannot hold the sacrament in any sense: niether character (which could be imprinted even in the state of mortal sin) nor grace.

From Aquinas’s Summa:
The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes the baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not baptized were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing,** but would have to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism**. The reason of this is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what has been said above (1; 65, 1). Now it is clear that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first born: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
Click to expand...
 
*Your pastor can still baptize him conditionally, but it doesn’t seem to me that it is necessary.
*
Fr. Serpa saying this concerned me. If someone in a parish came to him and he said this to the person, they may never be baptized.
Fr. may simply have not throught it through. I can give him the benefit of the doubt here. I’m sure he meant no bad will here, but in my humble opinion, that person should definately be baptized conditionally.
Baptism of desire “can” save, but water baptism most assuredly DOES save.
 
Keep in mind that the husband in question went through the RCIA process to become a Catholic, and in the course of doing so, apparently supplied what appeared to be a valid “baptismal certificate” from a Baptist church.

RCIA does not, I believe, ordinarily look beyond the apparent evidence of baptism presented by a candidate from other Christian denominations. Neither does it as a matter of course require conditional baptism unless there is evidence that the prior baptism was not valid.

I have heard the phrase “ecclesia supplet” applied to such cases in which a candidate believes he has been validly baptized, but in reality was not. In other words, the faith of the Church supplies what was formally lacking in a candidate’s baptism, who entered the Church in good faith through the RCIA process.
 
40.png
JimG:
Keep in mind that the husband in question went through the RCIA process to become a Catholic, and in the course of doing so, apparently supplied what appeared to be a valid “baptismal certificate” from a Baptist church.

RCIA does not, I believe, ordinarily look beyond the apparent evidence of baptism presented by a candidate from other Christian denominations. Neither does it as a matter of course require conditional baptism unless there is evidence that the prior baptism was not valid.

I have heard the phrase “ecclesia supplet” applied to such cases in which a candidate believes he has been validly baptized, but in reality was not. In other words, the faith of the Church supplies what was formally lacking in a candidate’s baptism, who entered the Church in good faith through the RCIA process.
Click to expand...
“Ecclesia supplet” should only apply when it is physically impossible to Baptise someone, for example, if someone lives their entire life thinking that they have been baptised Catholic, and after they die it is discovered that the person was NOT Baptised.

This man should receive Baptism as soon as possible, and Confirmation also.🙂
 
IMO, Baptism of Desire only comes into play when the person is deceased. While still alive, they should do a regular Baptism. (Or a conditional Baptism if uncertain.)

Otherwise, nobody would ever have to do a regular Baptism as all can say they previously had the Baptism of Desire, ie., already Baptised.
 
If I were the husband in question, I would want to be baptized, now that I knew that my first “baptism” was not a real baptism, but only a dedication.

But this does call into question the current practice within RCIA, where, in my experience, conditional baptism is generally discouraged. And since (a) he was a former Baptist, which usually baptizes according to the traditional formula, and
(b) he had a baptismal certificate from that church, a conditional baptism would certainly have been discouraged in his case when he entered the Church.
 
ATTENTION ALL: The answer was edited.
Fr Serpa:
Dear d,

Rest assured, you are validly married—and would be even if your husband had not been baptized. However, for the marriage to be sacramental, both parties must have been baptized. By the time your husband made his profession of faith as a Catholic and was confirmed, he had what the Church calls, baptism of desire. However, now that he knows for sure that he was not baptized, he needs to be baptized and he needs to be confirmed again.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Click to expand...
I remember another thread that I found interesting. In it, it said that a marriage of a Catholic to a non-batized person is immediately raised to the sacramental level once the person is baptized.

Also, I seem to recall that an invalid marriage entered into with proper intentions and no known impediments would still be valid if an impediment later emerged (for instance, she had good reason to believe her first husband died but years later discovered that he was in fact alive).

This same logic would seem to apply in this situation as well. If the marriage (done knowing he was not baptized) becomes sacramental through his baptism, would not a confirmation (entered into with full understanding and no known impediments) also be valid once he is actually baptized?
 
The question posed in the initial post is moot, given the edited reply by Father Serpa. The thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top