Baptism of Desire

[IntegraCatholic]

If it can be ascertained with certainty that either the form or matter was lacking, the Baptism would not be conditional but absolute (as is the case with Mormons, for example), for there is no possibility that the first was valid.

 

[ducinaltum79]

Thank you again to everyone who has replied to my question. I appreciate all of your (name removed by moderator)ut. You have all helped me to realize that I do indeed need to have this issue resolved once and for all (and immediately). I think the only way of doing that is through a conditional baptism and confirmation.

This is because my pastor specifically told me that he “sometimes” has baptized people without using the Trinitarian formula, and simply cannot remember in my case how he did it. As I cannot either, there is sufficient doubt, in my mind, about the validity of my baptism. This should have been addressed at the time of my entering into the Church, but was not.

While I agree with those who have said that I was “probably” baptized validly, I think the valid reception of the sacraments of the Church are far too important, even if the doubt is only slight. I need to be sure that I am taking the sacraments as a true member of the Church.

Thank you again for all your help! Please keep me in your prayers as I attempt to have this issue resolved!

In Christ,
Ron

 

[Sirach2]

Ron,

Please write back via this thread when there is a conclusion to this difficult matter. Many of us are pulling for you to have a good resolution, and would like to know how the church finally decides this issue.

God bless!

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Ducinaltum,

I would find your nearest traditional Catholic Priest (Fraternity of Saint Peter FSSP or even Society of St. Pius X SSPX if need be) - they take these things seriously. I’ve had these types of issues with both my little son and my wife.

The USCCB Priest was mistaken on confirmation. If you are in mortal sin and receive confirmation then what he said would be true - you wouldn’t receive the effects of the sacrament until you’re reconciled. But only the baptised can receive the sacraments so your confirmation would have to be conditionally performed again. But cross one bridge at a time and the most important is your baptism.

Let me know if you need any help locating a traditional Catholic Priest.

God Bless,

 

[excubitor]

Ducinaltum,

I would find your nearest traditional Catholic Priest (Fraternity of Saint Peter FSSP or even Society of St. Pius X SSPX if need be) - they take these things seriously. I’ve had these types of issues with both my little son and my wife.

The USCCB Priest was mistaken on confirmation. If you are in mortal sin and receive confirmation then what he said would be true - you wouldn’t receive the effects of the sacrament until you’re reconciled. But only the baptised can receive the sacraments so your confirmation would have to be conditionally performed again. But cross one bridge at a time and the most important is your baptism.

Let me know if you need any help locating a traditional Catholic Priest.

God Bless,

I certainly concur with this post. Go to the FSSP to be sure.

With regards to the AOG baptism. Its not just a matter of using the correct trinitarian formula. The baptiser must intend to do what the church does. In other words they must intend to be baptising you into the body of the church for the salvation of the soul.

Many sects however deliberately deny that we are saved by salvation. They teach that we are saved by faith alone and that baptism is only a symbolic external demonstration to witness our already saved condition to others. In such a case baptism is not regarded as a saving sacrament and instead of baptising the individual into the church, baptism is turned against the teaching of the catholic church.

Here is the AOG beliefs.

SALVATION OF MAN: WE BELIEVE salvation is received through repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This experience is also known as the new birth and is an instantaneous and complete operation of the Holy Spirit whereupon the believing sinner is regenerated, justified, and adopted into the family of God and becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus and heir of eternal life - Titus 2:11, 3:5-7; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 5:1.
WATER BAPTISM: WE BELIEVE that baptism, by single immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is enjoined upon all who have repented and have believed in Christ as Saviour and Lord, and that it is symbolic of our identification with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection - Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 10:47-48; 2:38-39; Romans 6:4-5; Colossians 2:12; Mark 16:16.

Put together we can see that the saving sacrament of Baptism is denied. The AOG believe that the Christian is regenerated by repentance and faith whereas Catholic teaching is that the sinner is regenerated in the waters of baptism.

Here is an article which corroborates what I am saying here
catholicism.about.com/b/2008/05/09/reader-question-what-makes-a-baptism-valid.htm

Therefore I would regard AOG baptisms as being invalid because they do not intend to do what the church does at baptism. At the very least a conditional baptism should be performed.

It is almost unimaginable how a priest could be so ignorant as to tell the OP that he is baptised by desire. Its just so appalling. I really have heard it all now. What is going to become of us?

 

[excubitor]

Many sects however deliberately deny that we are saved by salvation.

What I meant to say was “saved by baptism” woops.

 

[ducinaltum79]

Sirach - I will definitely post the response of the Church on this thread when it is decided. Thank you for your prayers and support.

The priest who is reticent to give me a conditional baptism and confirmation has agreed to meet with me this Friday to discuss the matter further. In the meantime, I have prepared a number of documents for the meeting: my original baptismal certificate, a print-out of the email I received from the archbishop saying I should be baptized again conditionally if there is any doubt as to the validity of my original baptism, quotations from the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism that bear on this issue, the doctrines of the AoG Church, and others. In other words, I’m going in prepared.

I also have a call in to a priest with the FSSP, on the recommendation of IntegraCatholic and RosaryCrusader. Thank you both! I’m waiting to hear back from him. At the very least, I’m hoping he will be able to help me in an advisory capacity.

The question of intent as bearing on the validity of a sacrament is something that seems incredibly vague to me. I’ve been trying to research what proper “intent” entails, and have found any number of different answers. Most simply say that the adult baptizer must intend to baptize, and leave it at that. To my mind, that definition seems maddeningly redundant. Others say that the baptizer must intend to bring you into full communion with the Church. Or that he must intend to wash you in the regenerative waters. Or both. Or something else entirely! I wish this particular aspect of sacramental validity was nailed down theologically, as it would greatly help in clarifying the present matter.

Again, thank you all for your help and prayers. I’m extremely grateful for them!

In Christ,
Ron

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Sirach - I will definitely post the response of the Church on this thread when it is decided. Thank you for your prayers and support.

The priest who is reticent to give me a conditional baptism and confirmation has agreed to meet with me this Friday to discuss the matter further. In the meantime, I have prepared a number of documents for the meeting: my original baptismal certificate, a print-out of the email I received from the archbishop saying I should be baptized again conditionally if there is any doubt as to the validity of my original baptism, quotations from the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism that bear on this issue, the doctrines of the AoG Church, and others. In other words, I’m going in prepared.

In Christ,
Ron

Excellent! I’m sure the issue will be resolved. It is also a very good idea to have a FSSP priest involved, since they don’t do the ‘don’t worry about it’ nonsence when it comes to crucial stuff like this.
Good luck!

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Ron,

The question of intent as bearing on the validity of a sacrament is something that seems incredibly vague to me. I’ve been trying to research what proper “intent” entails, and have found any number of different answers. Most simply say that the adult baptizer must intend to baptize, and leave it at that. To my mind, that definition seems maddeningly redundant. Others say that the baptizer must intend to bring you into full communion with the Church. Or that he must intend to wash you in the regenerative waters. Or both. Or something else entirely! I wish this particular aspect of sacramental validity was nailed down theologically, as it would greatly help in clarifying the present matter.

Please consider the following:

With regards to the AOG baptism. Its not just a matter of using the correct trinitarian formula. The baptiser must intend to do what the church does. In other words they must intend to be baptising you into the body of the church for the salvation of the soul. …In such a case baptism is not regarded as a saving sacrament and instead of baptising the individual into the church, baptism is turned against the teaching of the catholic church.

I used to think this, too, before I studied the matter more closely in conjuction with very knowledgeable Fraternity priests. The one who baptizes must have the intention to do as the Church does, not intend as the Church intends. That is why when theologians say that anyone can baptize validly, there is no caveat that he has to believe x, y, or z (or even intend it) in order to do so validly. He simply has to intend to do what the Church does. It is sufficient to say that the Church requires this ceremony for salvation (if even that) and to ask someone to do this. In this case even a Jew or pagan, as the authors say (who entirely deny the Sacraments or their efficacy and certainly wouldn’t intend to do something contrary to what they believe, well, before modern times, I guess), can validly baptize.

Even a priest who does not believe the validity of the Sacrament can still validly consecrate so long as he continues to intend to do what the Church does. Where most people go wrong is in saying that “well, since he put the vestments on and went to the altar, he clearly has the intention.” While we can (and must) suppose that to be the case, lacking other evidence to the contrary, that doesn’t mean he actually has the intention. Even an evil validly ordained priest could go to the altar and say Mass having all along absolutely no intention to confect the Sacrament. In this case, it is entirely null. The reason that this is necessary for the validity is that one must have a valid minister, which includes a minister who is at least virtually intending to do what the Church does. Because our Lord wills all men be saved, he left this caveat as broad as possible in order to allow the validity of the Sacraments as much as possible, for these are our principle means of grace.

Moreover, it prevents a priest, for example, who is learning the Mass to consecrate while simply saying a dry Mass. (That being said, of course, now deacons do this before they are ordained, even though this wasn’t usually the case in the early Church or even when priests weren’t accustomed to saying Mass everyday. Also, it would be better in a dry Mass to omit the words of the form altogether. Even though there could be no danger of confecting the Sacrament, it develops a sort of intention or habit of no confecting the Sacrament, which obviously should be avoided as much as possible.)

I don’t know where my copy of Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is, but I know he addresses this precise point. I recommend that if you have a copy, you read the section on intention for the Sacraments.

 

[excubitor]

I used to think this, too, before I studied the matter more closely in conjuction with very knowledgeable Fraternity priests. The one who baptizes must have the intention to do as the Church does, not intend as the Church intends.

What’s the difference. You are splitting hairs here.

That is why when theologians say that anyone can baptize validly, there is no caveat that he has to believe x, y, or z (or even intend it) in order to do so validly. He simply has to intend to do what the Church does.

If he does not have to believe or even intend anything then how can it be said that he intends to do as the church. I’m happy to learn but I’m afraid you are not making sense. The baptiser has to believe something in order to intend to do something. Besides I deny that the psuedo-Christian sects of which I speak are intending to do what the Church does.

It is sufficient to say that the Church requires this ceremony for salvation (if even that) and to ask someone to do this. In this case even a Jew or pagan, as the authors say (who entirely deny the Sacraments or their efficacy and certainly wouldn’t intend to do something contrary to what they believe, well, before modern times, I guess), can validly baptize.

Well I entirely disagree that this correct statement you have made refutes my previous post. A Jew or a pagan may understand that he is acting as a representative of the church in doing what the church does. His personal disbelief about baptismal regeneration is irrelevant. What is revelant is that he believes that he is acting on behalf of the church to do what the church does.

In many of these modern sects particularly in the US there is a general condition whereby they either.

1. Explicitly deny the doctrine of the Trinity and even though they use the correct formula (baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) they are not intending by using these words to express the sense which is intended by the church. In fact they deliberately deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Such a baptism is INVALID.
2. Explicitly deny or else vigorously imply that they are not baptising for the regeneration of the soul but are merely going through a symbolic social display. In this case they are deliberately opposing what the church intends. Such a baptism is also INVALID.

So the difference between the unbelieving pagan is that he is not making any denial of what the church intends and is acting as an agent for the church, whereas the psuedo Christian sect is deliberately opposing what the church intends for baptism, nor are they baptising on behalf of the church but have set up their false baptism in direct opposition to the baptism of the church. They are in fact not baptising into the Christian church at all but are baptising into a false pseudo-Christian church.

I contend and urge strongly that baptisms are NOT VALID if a “Christian” church baptises when:
•Its intent is not to introduce you into the Catholic Church;
•It did not aim to introduce you into the grace of Christ;
•It was not administered as an effective sacrament, but merely an external symbol of your faith.

I judge that AOG baptisms do not intend the above effects. I also know that what I say is correct for the vast majority of these little splinter sects who exist in great numbers in the US today. Usually these baptisms are not recorded properly, there is no way of contacting the pastor to ask him what his intention was, it cannot be established that the proper form has been used, the beliefs in the Trinity are very dodgy. The tendancy in these cases is to rebaptise.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says as much “Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the **intention of the administrator **or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 264).

In fact the proliferation of psuedo Christian sects and chaos in Christendom has caused a major shift since Vatican 2 to severely curtail the number of conditional baptisms and opt in the first instance to absolute baptisms.

Jimmy Akin talks about this in this article
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/06/protestant_bapt.html

I would say that today it is only appropriate to conditionally baptise (or not baptise) for mainline denominations who existed prior to the explosion of the number of sects and denominations which has occurred in the last 60 years.

I think you have misunderstood your FSSP priests or else there is a major rift amongst the FSSP priests because it was an FSSP priest who taught me as above and determined that my baptism was not valid for these reasons.

 

[ron77nyc]

Were Paul and Peter performing valid baptisms?

Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 10:48, “And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.”

Acts 19:1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this,** they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.** 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

What’s the difference. You are splitting hairs here.

I refer you to Ott. He takes up this particular question. It’s not splitting hairs; specific questions of dogmatic theology are very involved.

If he does not have to believe or even intend anything then how can it be said that he intends to do as the church.

That’s all his intention has to be, to do what the Church does, i.e., pour water, say the words, with intention to complete the act (whatever that may entail). As I explained, the intention has more to do with preventing a Sacrament when the minister puts a positive impediment to confecting it.

The baptiser has to believe something in order to intend to do something.

He does believe something. He believes he is performing a ritual, which he is doing. That is what the Church does. What the Church intends to take place is something above and beyond that.

Besides I deny that the psuedo-Christian sects of which I speak are intending to do what the Church does.

I realize that. As I said, I held your precise opinion for years until more recently when I discovered the difference between what the Church intends and what the Church does.

A Jew or a pagan may understand that he is acting as a representative of the church in doing what the church does. His personal disbelief about baptismal regeneration is irrelevant. What is revelant is that he believes that he is acting on behalf of the church to do what the church does.

If he doesn’t believe in baptismal regeneration, one certainly cannot assume he intends baptismal regeneration. That is what I’m saying. Before modern day people didn’t compromise their religious beliefs so their neighbors could feel good about themselves (which is basically a Jew’s interpretation of the efficacy of Baptism). That being said, why did not a single theologian discuss what you are saying as being necessary for a Jew to baptize validly? That surely is something that ought to have been mentioned anytime someone said “even a Jew or pagan can validly baptize”.

In many of these modern sects particularly in the US there is a general condition whereby they either.

1. Explicitly deny the doctrine of the Trinity…

Well, it’s definitely questionably valid. In this case, there is no way someone should receive an absolute Baptism. Since there is some (even the least) doubt that it could have been valid, he is to be baptized conditionally. There is never danger in using a conditional formula when there is any doubt one way or the other.

1. Explicitly deny or else vigorously imply that they are not baptising for the regeneration of the soul but are merely going through a symbolic social display.

Again, I held these very positions myself. I know where you’re coming from. It just doesn’t seem to be the case that this would invalidate the Sacrament. No one does it merely through a social display. All Protestant sects know that this is commanded in the Gospel. They obviously err in its proper understanding, but they know it is something commanded by God. Granted, there is a lot of doubt in these cases, which is why in America (where non-mainstream Protestants abounded) the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that all Protestants generally receive a conditional baptism when received into the Church, and this is a good policy, even more so in our day.

So the difference between the unbelieving pagan is that he is not making any denial of what the church intends and is acting as an agent for the church

The intention of the Jew and pagan, then, is to do nothing. As I said above, they aren’t going to intend to do something they deny to be possible. If they had to intend all these things, that would have been mentioned by every catechism, theologian, and council that spoke about them being able validly to baptize.

I contend and urge strongly that baptisms are NOT VALID if a “Christian” church baptises when, [etc.]

This doesn’t certainly invalidate the Sacrament, from what I mentioned above. We are really still on square one. We can’t come to a consensus until we discuss the difference between intending what the Church does or what the Church intends. Of course, I agree entirely that these persons must still receive a conditional baptism because, while it is possible they received a valid baptism, it is difficult or impossible to know that with certainty.

In fact the proliferation of psuedo Christian sects and chaos in Christendom has caused a major shift since Vatican 2 to severely curtail the number of conditional baptisms and opt in the first instance to absolute baptisms.

Where have you observed or heard this? They should still be administered conditionally because there still remains some doubt. The only thing I have seen is the curtailing of conditional baptisms with no re-baptism at all, which is ridiculous.

I would say that today it is only appropriate to conditionally baptise (or not baptise) for mainline denominations who existed prior to the explosion of the number of sects and denominations which has occurred in the last 60 years.

I think they should still be conditionally baptized unless it can be ascertained with certainty that it was validly done, which is almost impossible.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Were Paul and Peter performing valid baptisms?

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism in the Name of Christ:

If at any time the Apostles baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power. If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptised in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.

 

[excubitor]

That’s all his intention has to be, to do what the Church does, i.e., pour water, say the words, with intention to complete the act (whatever that may entail). As I explained, the intention has more to do with preventing a Sacrament when the minister puts a positive impediment to confecting it.

I am certain this is incorrect. Its clear that his intention is to say words and pour water because that is what he does. This requirement is covered under form and matter. Why then does the church add to the stipulations of form and matter with additional provisos of “intent to do what the church does”? Clearly they must at least understand that they are acting as an agent of the church with the intention to baptise the person into the church in the name of the Trinity and that they are intending to perform this act by proxy on behalf of the church.

If however both the baptised and the baptiser believe that the name “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” mean something completely different to the Trinity doctrine, or that baptism does not actually do anything or mean anything except a kind of symbolic demonstration of faith then they are not intending to do what the church does at all.

We are to some extent going around in circles. I am concerned that your FSSP superiors are not considering the ruling by Pope John Paul II that Mormon baptisms are INVALID even though they use the correct form.

The problem with the Mormon baptism is the matter and the intent.

Here is an article from EWTN on the issue
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

The matter is a problem because the Mormons have a specific doctrinal disagreement with the catholic church on what “Father Son and Holy Spirit” means. The report states

"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. "

This was a problem in my sect also because we believed that God was one Family and that the Father and Son were seperate persons and the Holy Spirit was the spiritual force of God. We specifically denied the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. However this was not the primary reason why my baptism was judged invalid.

Rather it was the intent of the baptiser.

Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the “priest” (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, ca**nnot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection **(cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

So you see the beliefs and doctrines of the baptiser and the baptised regarding baptism are VERY IMPORTANT and not at all inconsequential as you are claiming with your example of the Jew and Pagan baptiser.

The article then follows up with further beliefs and doctrines which invalidate baptism on account of the breach of intention.

This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

This in effect brings into serious question all baptisms of all sects and denominations which deny infant baptism because clearly they do not believe that the stain of original sin is being washed away by the baptism. If they did believe this to be the case then they would insist with urgency that their infants be baptised. Therefore these denominations DO NOT intend to DO the washing away of original sin which the Catholic church does when it baptises.

This decision to deny Mormon baptisms as being without doubt invalid has had the effect of making a large majority of pseudo Christian sects and shonky corrupted denominations baptisms as being ruled INVALID which is why absolute baptisms are required. Since this ruling their has been a very sharp drop in the number of conditional baptisms, a trend which will continue as the protestant sects become more chaotic, fragmented and their beliefs become even disparate and undefined.

The ruling by the Vatican actually gives some specific definition as to what “intends to do as the church does” means. Before that the notion was very rubbery and unclear which is why the “Dubium” regarding the validity of Baptism conferred upon Mormons was raised in the first place.

Could you please review the attached article and the decision by the Vatican to deny Mormon baptisms and revisit your approach to this subject in this thread?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I may be misapplying principles here. I will have to think about it a bit. You may be correct. As I said, that has been my understanding of it until recently. I think I am mistaken here.

 

[John_Martin]

Someone asked about Baptism not long ago; maybe this will be of help:
Why baptize; what does baptism really do?
The question arises when people focus on the “spiritual side” of Christianity without acknowledgment of the “physical side”. Their focus is on “going to heaven”, “being right with God”, “having Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior”, etc.
• Explanations do not do a lot to solve this focus, because these explanations are assuming that a certain understanding of the “physical side” of Baptism exists with people. But few people in the modern world have an understanding of the “physical side”.
o When the question arises of “How does Baptism save us?” the explanations are something like, "It is not merely water, but a life-giving washing of regeneration (a sacrament) because it is based on Christ’s command and promise and it is performed in his name.
o That, too, is a focus on the “spiritual side” as an explanation of what is spiritually happening within the physical side, but not telling what is really happening on that physical side.
o Basically, people find it difficult to see how a human action of pouring water on me by a priest in a white robe can do anything to save my soul.
• So, what is really happening on the “physical side” of baptism?
o Do you remember how the whole hope and all the promises of the Old Testament were focused on the promise of the Messiah, who would establish an eternal kingdom? “Messiah” means “Christ” in Greek, and it means “Anointed One” in English.
 They were waiting for the one whom God would anoint as King to establish a new government that would be on his shoulders, a new nation, a new kingdom - not created by men, as our ancestors did when they used weapons to establish the United States.
 The physical side of Baptism began with Jesus being baptized (anointed) as that King –
• The physical activity of John baptizing him was his appointment to the office of King (and High Priest). Jesus became the first citizen of that Kingdom when he was baptized.
• The spiritual side of Jesus’ Baptism was the Dove from heaven, and then the voice from heaven, both confirming what everyone physically saw happen.
 Jesus’ Kingdom was ON Earth, but it was not OF men (men did not establish it). It was OF God - God established it. It was a kingdom OF God, not a kingdom OF men.
 That is the Gospel – the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God” – it is real, it is here, and you are a citizen of it, as described below.
o Here, then is the physical side of baptism –
 Jesus commanded his disciples to make people into new disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit –
• In other words, he commanded his disciples to grant citizenship to people into his Kingdom on earth by baptizing them.
• It is a kingdom with citizens,
• But it is a kingdom with no land (yet), as Jesus said, “Foxes have dens, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (“Son of Man” was the title for the Messiah, the Anointed King, from the prophets of the Old Testament).
• If our King had nowhere to lay his head in his kingdom on earth, then neither do we who are citizens of that kingdom on earth - we are resident aliens on earth, in the human established nations where we live.
 The church is the association of people who are citizens of that kingdom on earth.
• Jesus appointed leaders with the command and authority to grant citizenship and teach the new citizens.
• So, the church baptizes people (grants them citizenship) and then teaches them that it is greater than just an earthly kingdom, but has the spiritual side also.
• When you were baptized you became a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom on earth, but he is risen from death; you who are his subjects on earth will also be with him in his spiritual, eternal kingdom.
• All participating in Jesus’ kingdom on earth, by faith also know they are part of a kingdom that transcends earth into the heavens where He sits at his Father’s right hand.
• They know that their baptism was physically “the granting of citizenship into a kingdom on earth”, and they know it was also a washing of new birth into sonship in the heavenly kingdom. Their True Nationality is “Christian”.
o No one is “born” into Jesus’ kingdom by human birth – you were not born a Catholic. Babies are not “automatically” Christians.
 People desiring to be in Jesus’ kingdom are accepted in, baptized into citizenship
 However, since its beginnings, the Church has always welcomed whole families into citizenship together, baptizing children, teaching them as they grow up about the true nature of the kingdom of God – that they are part of it on earth and will be part of it when their King returns to claim them.
 If we do not baptize our children, then we cannot comfort them by saying, “you are Jesus’ brother / sister”, “you are one of his people”, “Jesus chose you and made you his own”, etc. Instead we would have to say to them, “When you are old enough to choose for yourself, then you can be a part of Jesus’ kingdom, but you cannot be a part of his people yet because you cannot think clearly yet until you reach a certain age.”
• That may sound cruel, but the kingdom is here, and it has a physical point of entrance (baptism) – don’t hold back your child / baby from being brought into the kingdom, and then learning to know who their king is.
• Jesus declared the same when people brought babies and children to him (Luke 18:15-17) – his Kingdom belongs to them and all who receive it like they do. Jesus rebuked his disciples for stopping these parents, so since then the Church does not refuse citizenship to babies and children who are brought to Jesus’ Kingdom by their parents. The Church grants this blessing of citizenship to the babies and children by baptizing them, and then teaches them about their King as they grow.
This physical reality bearing the spiritual reality is not present anywhere else in the world.

 

[ron77nyc]

Some people make salvation seem like a ball game. If you don’t touch first base then the umpire will not let you score when you reach home plate. I think if Paul and Peter did not use the Trinitarian formula all the time then no one should disqualify someone from salvation based on the omission of the formula alone. Here is what John Paul II said about that.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20010106_novo-millennio-ineunte_en.html

STARTING AFRESH FROM CHRIST

We are certainly not seduced by the naive expectation that, faced with the great challenges of our time, we shall find some magic formula. No, we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person, and the assurance which he gives us: I am with you!

 

[dans0622]

I may be misapplying principles here. I will have to think about it a bit. You may be correct. As I said, that has been my understanding of it until recently. I think I am mistaken here.

Hello IntegraCatholic,

I concur with your previous statements. The Church wants valid sacraments, especially baptism. So, there are only a few, basic requirements for validity and the notion of “intending to do what the Church does” should be understood to mean just that. There is no question of belief, or understanding, or acceptance, only the basic intention to do whatever it is that the Church does. If the Church wanted to require something else, she could have done so. But, all we have is “If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema” (Session 7, canon 11 on Sacraments, Council of Trent).

It is in terms of the form that belief is important. But even here, it takes a lot for a baptism to be considered invalid. From the beginning, the baptism of heretics has been considered valid, as Trent confirmed: “If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema” (Session 7, canon 4, on Baptism).

If a sect gets to the point of the Mormons, though, we are not dealing with mere heretics but apostates who, even though they use the correct words, mean nothing similar to what the words truly mean.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[AJustice]

This is always such an interesting argument to me. I can tell you that I was one of the very few persons that the Church re-baptized upon my conversion in 2009. I was so devastated when they told me and openly cried at the thought of some one thinking I did not have the Holy Spirit because of some doctrinal difference between two faiths traditions. As if God has these limitations we sometimes inflict on Him.

The pastoral associate was very compassionate with me, as was Father, but it sill felt like I was getting the run around about becoming Catholic (I think everyone in RCIA feels that at least once). We had several discussions about the situation and at one point they looked at me and said that it was obvious Sprint of the Lord was already dwelling in my heart… Sometime it’s about being obedient. It is my humble opinion that the desire for the Lord is the first washing of the Spirit. Just saying ‘yes’ is not easy for most people and if you convert to Catholicism you’ll have many more moments to choose ‘yes’ and keep going despite the run around.

Eventually the Lord revealed his plan on Easter Vigil when I entered the font, 9 1/2 months pregnant with my son. People could be heard openly weeping in the background and many people came to me afterward, tell me that watching my Baptism was so unique and special that is changed them.

I like to relate it to the story of the prodigal son. Sometimes that story is about the second son, sometimes the first son and sometimes it’s about the father. The same story told from different point of view.

 

[excubitor]

Hello IntegraCatholic,

I concur with your previous statements. The Church wants valid sacraments, especially baptism. So, there are only a few, basic requirements for validity and the notion of “intending to do what the Church does” should be understood to mean just that. There is no question of belief, or understanding, or acceptance, only the basic intention to do whatever it is that the Church does. If the Church wanted to require something else, she could have done so. But, all we have is “If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema” (Session 7, canon 11 on Sacraments, Council of Trent).

It is in terms of the form that belief is important. But even here, it takes a lot for a baptism to be considered invalid. From the beginning, the baptism of heretics has been considered valid, as Trent confirmed: “If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema” (Session 7, canon 4, on Baptism).

If a sect gets to the point of the Mormons, though, we are not dealing with mere heretics but apostates who, even though they use the correct words, mean nothing similar to what the words truly mean.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

Are you opposing me in this thread because you have taken offence to my comments in the other thread on anullments? I don’t take kindly to being stalked. Leave me alone please.