Baptism questions

[NKY_Catholic]

If most Protestant denominations believe that baptism is only symbolic and does not convey grace why do we accept Protestant baptisms as valid for those that convert to the Catholic Church? Also, I know a few former Catholics that have left the Church and joined varying Protestant denominations or nondemoninational chruches. Some of them have said that they were baptised in their new church. Why don’t many of these churches accept Catholic baptisms?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

NKY_Catholic:

If most Protestant denominations believe that baptism is only symbolic and does not convey grace why do we accept Protestant baptisms as valid for those that convert to the Catholic Church? Also, I know a few former Catholics that have left the Church and joined varying Protestant denominations or nondemoninational chruches. Some of them have said that they were baptised in their new church. Why don’t many of these churches accept Catholic baptisms?

Because some Protestant denominations don’t accept any Baptism except immersion. Others re-baptize everyone who comes into their church even though it is against the teaching of the Bible and the practice found among the early Christians.

The Catholic Church accepts Baptism that is with the proper Matter and Form with the intent to Baptize. Even though they may have a different idea of the effects of the act.

 

[Stephen_Mills]

Br. Rich SFO:

Because some Protestant denominations don’t accept any Baptism except immersion. Others re-baptize everyone who comes into their church even though it is against the teaching of the Bible and the practice found among the early Christians.

This is absolutely false. Only a few protestant denominations baptize only by immersion (ie Baptists and Pentecostals). These are the denominations that require those who have previously been baptized as infants to be rebaptized. Most other denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc…) baptize using the same formula and method as the Catholic Church, and thus accept Catholic baptism as valid.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

Stephen Mills:

This is absolutely false. Only a few protestant denominations baptize only by immersion (ie Baptists and Pentecostals). These are the denominations that require those who have previously been baptized as infants to be rebaptized. Most other denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc…) baptize using the same formula and method as the Catholic Church, and thus accept Catholic baptism as valid.

Bro Rich SFO did say some, not all

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Stephen Mills:

This is absolutely false. Only a few protestant denominations baptize only by immersion (ie Baptists and Pentecostals). These are the denominations that require those who have previously been baptized as infants to be rebaptized. Most other denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc…) baptize using the same formula and method as the Catholic Church, and thus accept Catholic baptism as valid.

Actually many Baptist and Pentecostal Communities re-Baptize even those new members who were Baptized as adults. Most other mainline Protestant denominations accept Catholic and infant Baptisms. Many fundamental non-denominational communities also require immersion Baptism and re-Baptize new members.

You missed the other part of the original question. “Why does the Catholic Church accept Protestant Baptism as valid?”

However I’m Catholic not Protestant and only know what I have read or been told by RCIA Candidates.

 

[Stephen_Mills]

Br. Rich SFO:

Actually many Baptist and Pentecostal Communities re-Baptize even those new members who were Baptized as adults.

You missed the other part of the original question. “Why does the Catholic Church accept Protestant Baptism as valid?”

However I’m Catholic not Protestant and only know what I have read or been told by RCIA Candidates.

Baptists and Pentecostals require individuals to be rebaptized only if they were not baptized as adults and by full submersion.

The Church accepts protestant baptism as valid as long as they were performed according to the “trinitarian formula”. What a protestant believes happens at baptism, and what actually happens, may be different things, however.

 

[puzzleannie]

to answer the original question, the effects of the sacrament come from proper matter and form (words, actions and created things), performed by someone who can validly minister the sacrament if the minister intends. They are not contingent upon the faith of the minister or the recipient. The words and actions do what they say, effect what they claim. Therefore baptism that meets the requirements is recognized by the Catholic church, sets an indelible seal on the soul and cannot be repeated. the lack of understanding of the sacrament on the part of the minister or new Christian does not change the effects as long as proper matter, form and intent are present.

 

[Philthy]

**Br. Rich SFO:
Because some Protestant denominations don’t accept any Baptism except immersion. Others re-baptize everyone who comes into their church even though it is against the teaching of the Bible and the practice found among the early Christians
Stephen Mills:

This is absolutely false. Only a few protestant denominations baptize only by immersion (ie Baptists and Pentecostals). These are the denominations that require those who have previously been baptized as infants to be rebaptized. Most other denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc…) baptize using the same formula and method as the Catholic Church, and thus accept Catholic baptism as valid.

sorry stephen, but your characterization of Br Rich as being “absolutely false” is erroneous. What are you thinking he said is false?

1. “Because some Protestant denominations don’t accept any Baptism except immersion.”
   Sorry my friend, but this is a true statement. Evangelical Free churches also practice immersion. So his statement was true.

2.(a.)Others re-baptize everyone who comes into their church even though
(b)it is against the teaching of the Bible
(c)and the practice found among the early Christians

regarding a) Again you are in the wrong. Some Protestant churches re-baptize new members if they deem the formula used was incorrect or for some other particular associated with their denom.

regarding b) Here I would say you are wrong, but at least you could simply claim a difference of interpretation of Scripture. Paul says, “There is only one baptism…” that is the most likely reference. One thing is certain: characterizing his statement as “absolutely false” is wrong.

regarding c) history is not that difficult to consult these days. If this was the “absolutely false” part, please provide some proof other than hot air. This, of course, would be difficult to prove since there was only one Christian Church on earth: who else would be baptizing?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

puzzleannie:

to answer the original question, the effects of the sacrament come from proper matter and form (words, actions and created things), performed by someone who can validly minister the sacrament if the minister intends. They are not contingent upon the faith of the minister or the recipient. The words and actions do what they say, effect what they claim. Therefore baptism that meets the requirements is recognized by the Catholic church, sets an indelible seal on the soul and cannot be repeated. the lack of understanding of the sacrament on the part of the minister or new Christian does not change the effects as long as proper matter, form and intent are present.

Not to nitpik, but always remember that it is Grace that Sacraments communicate and that the source of all Grace is God. A sacrament is a physical sign, instituted by Christ, which communicates Grace. God alone is the SOURCE of all Grace. I do not believe it is approptriate to think of a Sacrament as a SOURCE of Grace, but rather as a MEANS of God communicating Grace. I just finished reading the Baptism chapter of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (evangelical) and he seems to believe that “ex operato opere” means that the actions of baptism are the source of the Grace that is communicated as opposed to God being the Source. When I read your post, I can imagine others thinking the same thoughts.

Phil

 

[stbruno]

Seventh Day Adventists do full immersion baptism as well. Of course, I think that is there only “sacrament” that they celebrate as well. Their services or Sabbath day on Saturday usually involves a liturgy of the word and foot washing.

 

[stbruno]

Seventh Day Adventists do full immersion baptism as well. Of course, I think that is their only “sacrament” that they celebrate as well. Their services or Sabbath day on Saturday usually involves a liturgy of the word and foot washing.

 

[mercygate]

Don’t forget that denominations which accept only “believer’s baptism” do not accept infant baptism and therefore do not accept most Catholic baptisms on that account. So it’s not just the matter of immersion versus pouring that puts them off. Fundamentalists require a person to “accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior” in their way: Catholics, who are not Christians according to many of these denominations, have never done that – or so they say.

 

[mercygate]

By the way, I understand there are big, hairy “issues” when a Catholic who has accepted Baptism in another Church returns to the fold. Anybody have the skinny on that? I heard that such cases may have to be adjudicated by the Vatican. If that is another thread, please ignore the question.

 

[Jodi]

Okay I have a baptism question. My husband was baptised in the church of god at age 11. (I think the catholic church accepts those baptisms) Then at age 22 he was baptised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka mormons. (I don’t believe the catholic church accepts these baptisms) So does the first babtism count? Or does the 2nd baptism constitute a formal break since it is not recognized? He then married me a non catholic but now wishes to become catholic. I know its enough to give one a headache. I need to know so I can figure out if our marriage is considered valid or not.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Jodi:

Okay I have a baptism question. My husband was baptised in the church of god at age 11. (I think the catholic church accepts those baptisms) Then at age 22 he was baptised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka mormons. (I don’t believe the catholic church accepts these baptisms) So does the first babtism count? Or does the 2nd baptism constitute a formal break since it is not recognized? He then married me a non catholic but now wishes to become catholic. I know its enough to give one a headache. I need to know so I can figure out if our marriage is considered valid or not.

Just from what you posted. I would say that the first Baptism would be questionable because the Church of God does not always have a Trinitarian view. Mormon Baptism is not valid. The Marriage may be valid but not Sacramental if no valid Baptism was ever received. The Marriage may become Sacramental at the moment Valid Baptism is received without anything else needing to take place.