Baptism of Desire

  • Thread starter Thread starter ducinaltum79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is turning out to be a really interesting discussion. Being a first-year student in a theology program, I unfortunately don’t yet have the understanding to parse these theological subtleties. Both IntegraCatholic and Excubitor have made some very interesting arguments. I especially appreciate the article from EWTN. I’ll be sure to print that one out and bring it to my priest tomorrow for our discussion. I’m still very confused about the issue of “intending to do what the Church does” and “intending to do what the Church intends,” as it bears on sacramental validity. But one thing Excubitor said does make sense to me: that if it were only a matter of performing the external rite accurately, why add a third requirement - intention - besides form and matter?

One thing I can clarify is that the baptism I received in the Assemblies of God church is what’s known as a “believer’s baptism.” IntregraCatholic commented: “No one does it merely through a social display. All Protestant sects know that this is commanded in the Gospel.” This isn’t, sadly, exactly true. My own church did indeed believe it was only a social display. An external expression, with no regenerating or even spiritual effect, of an inward conversion. They do not baptize unless one has already reached the age of reason, much like the Mormons. It’s much like their view of Communion. It is nothing more than an external, symbolic expression, communicating absolutely no spiritual effects/grace.

I recently viewed a list of various churches/ecclesial communities along with whether or not the diocese accepted their baptisms as valid. In the case of Assemblies of God (grouped under the “Pentecostal” umbrella), they stated that it was impossible to determine whether or not it was valid, because the church gives no details on how they are performed. In fact, if you look at that AoG official website, one thing you will immediately notice is that there is almost nothing said about baptism. Contrast this to “baptism in the spirit,” for which innumerable articles and statements can be found. All it says of water baptism is:

“The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.”

So, as you can see, the baptism is merely declarative. Whether or not that is sufficient for a valid baptism is beyond my knowledge. Of course, this is all still beside the point that even the form of my baptism is in question.

Anyway, I’m loving this discussion! Thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut. It’s very helpful!

In Christ,
Ron
 
Great news! I finally got in contact with an FSSP priest (Thank you, IntegraCatholic!). He listened to my story and immediately agreed to baptize and confirm me conditionally next Wednesday. He said he was startled that I was not conditionally baptized when I was received into the Church in 2005, given my situation. So, everything looks to be resolved!

Bonus: Being an FSSP priest, he’ll be conditionally baptizing and confirming me in the traditional Latin rite. 🙂

Again, thank you everyone for all your help. Especially thank you for taking my story seriously and giving me some very good guidance in this difficult matter. God bless you all!

In Christ,
Ron
 
Great news! I finally got in contact with an FSSP priest (Thank you, IntegraCatholic!). He listened to my story and immediately agreed to baptize and confirm me conditionally next Wednesday. He said he was startled that I was not conditionally baptized when I was received into the Church in 2005, given my situation. So, everything looks to be resolved!

Bonus: Being an FSSP priest, he’ll be conditionally baptizing and confirming me in the traditional Latin rite. 🙂

Again, thank you everyone for all your help. Especially thank you for taking my story seriously and giving me some very good guidance in this difficult matter. God bless you all!

In Christ,
Ron
Very good outcome Ron,
The priest was startled. That would be an understatement. It does not take much to shock me these days after decades of abuses in the church but your case was truly shocking.

Congratulations. I would have gone with the absolute baptism given what you said in the previous post however no harm can be done with a conditional baptism. There are some significant differences between conditional and absolute baptisms, for example with the conditional baptism you will need to make a complete confession of all your mortal sins, I think you have to make a complete abjuration of former errors and a profession of faith. These things are not necessary with an absolute baptism which washes away all sins.

A conditional baptism does too if indeed the previous baptism was invalid, but the confessions abjurations and professions are necessary in case the previous baptism was valid. I am sure your FSSP priest has discussed this with you and the points raised for and against conditional baptism have been examined closely.
 
Thanks, Excubitor. Yes, it is a fairly shocking story, unfortunately. I did ask the priest about whether I should confess my sins before the conditional baptism, and he told me to hold off on that until afterward. Related to that, I found the following quotation from a document off of EWTN:

“If conditional baptism is foreseen, the confession should be postponed until a suitable time after the celebration, since certainty is required in questions regarding the validity of the sacraments.”

You can find it located here:

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur104.htm

So I’m assuming I’ll be making a confession after the conditional baptism and confirmation.

Thanks again!
 
In addition to what has been said already, here is something from Leo XIII:

“33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament” (Apostolicae curae).

To ducinaltum79: I’m glad you have found a satisfactory solution to this mess. It really shouldn’t be this hard to be baptized. But, that’s the way it is.

I offer my “unconditional” welcome to the Church. 🙂

Dan
 
Thanks, Excubitor. Yes, it is a fairly shocking story, unfortunately. I did ask the priest about whether I should confess my sins before the conditional baptism, and he told me to hold off on that until afterward. Related to that, I found the following quotation from a document off of EWTN:

“If conditional baptism is foreseen, the confession should be postponed until a suitable time after the celebration, since certainty is required in questions regarding the validity of the sacraments.”

You can find it located here:

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur104.htm

So I’m assuming I’ll be making a confession after the conditional baptism and confirmation.

Thanks again!
Ducinaltum, Great news!! See, told you FSSP take these things seriously! Concerning your confession; you know it’s going to be a general confession right? I’d spend some time in prayer and recollection and keep a notebook and pencil handy to jot down sins as you remember them from now until the time you make your confession.

God Bless you,
 
There seems to be a conflict between what the Church used to teach and what is being taught here in this discussion.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Fulgentius of Ruspe

“Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
The negative document: "De Baptismo"
The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which **the following doctrines are anathematized **(declared heretical):
• Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance.
 
Hi ron77nyc -

In response to your question about a conflict of teaching between the ancient Church and the Church of today:

According to the sacramental theology of the Church, which has not changed, for a sacrament to be valid, three conditions must be met: form, matter and intent. The Church then and now, recognizes baptisms given in non-Catholic denominations and other ecclesial communities as being valid, insofar as they meet these three requirements. If that can be proven, the Church will not give an absolute baptism. If it can be proven that the original baptism did NOT meet these three requirements, then an absolute baptism is given. This is NOT a re-baptism, as in this case the person was never actually validly baptized.

For those situations, such as my own, in which there is DOUBT about the validity of the original baptism, then a CONDITIONAL one is given. The priest will say something like, “In case you were never validly baptized, I baptize you…” This formula and practice prevents the Church from re-baptizing a person.

I hope this helps clear up the seeming contradiction. This topic can certainly be very confusing…
Ron
 
RosaryCrusader-

Thanks very much for your kind words! I’m extremely grateful for the help and compassion of this FSSP priest.

Regarding the General Confession - it was not my assumption that this would take place. If I really was validly baptized before, then all my other confessions up until this point would also be valid, and there would be no need to confess all of them again.

If, however, it WASN’T valid, then the baptism would be absolute, forgiving me of all sins, original and actual, up until that point. Again, a general confession would not be necessary.

Am I mistaken here? My logic could be totally off, and I’m obviously no expert in sacramental theology.

Thanks!
Ron
 
RosaryCrusader-

Thanks very much for your kind words! I’m extremely grateful for the help and compassion of this FSSP priest.

Regarding the General Confession - it was not my assumption that this would take place. If I really was validly baptized before, then all my other confessions up until this point would also be valid, and there would be no need to confess all of them again.

If, however, it WASN’T valid, then the baptism would be absolute, forgiving me of all sins, original and actual, up until that point. Again, a general confession would not be necessary.

Am I mistaken here? My logic could be totally off, and I’m obviously no expert in sacramental theology.

Thanks!
Ron
No, Sorry - I was wrong. I was thinking of my wife’s situation (which was similar to yours) but she had to make a general confession - her’s is a long story so I won’t go into detail but I erroneously was thinking you would need a GC too…

I’m very happy for you - these things are such an emotional drain!

God Bless,
 
Actually, unlike other situations where there is a conditional baptism, there is no need to have a general or conditional confession in this particular instance, because:

If you were already validly baptized, all your confessions to this point would be valid. Your confirmation would also have already been valid from the first time you received it.

If you were not already validly baptized, your sins will be washed away by your baptism, and you will have no need to confess them.

Either case has it’s positives and negatives. With the former, you will have all the merits you have gained over the past several years, all of your communions, etc. In the second case, you have a fresh start and can now (especially after several years of practicing the faith as far as you thought yourself to be able) continue a more serious practice of the faith and make even greater efforts to avoid sin. You would have no temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory on account of your Baptism. What a grace!

I am glad everything has come to a satisfactory conclusion. God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top