Baptism twice ?

[Chuck1]

Hi I’m very soon going to be baptised at my baptist church but if I later on in my life be baptised in a RC church , what’s the point if I already have been baptised and had the holy spirit and been forgiven of sins for a start of a new creation ?

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi I’m very soon going to be baptised at my baptist church but if I later on in my life be baptised in a RC church , what’s the point if I already have been baptised and had the holy spirit and been forgiven of sins for a start of a new creation ?

you cannot be baptized twice
as St Paul says there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism through which we are saved

a non-Catholic Christian who has already been validly baptized, as I said before, is prepared to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church through a profession of faith, the sacrament of confirmation, and first communion, preceeded by sacramental confession.

you might also do as suggested, spend a little time with forum rules, so your experienc here will be more enjoyable and profitable

you already have a thread going on where you asked this question

 

[TrueLight]

you cannot be baptized twice
as St Paul says there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism through which we are saved

a non-Catholic Christian who has already been validly baptized, as I said before, is prepared to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church through a profession of faith, the sacrament of confirmation, and first communion, preceeded by sacramental confession.

you might also do as suggested, spend a little time with forum rules, so your experienc here will be more enjoyable and profitable

you already have a thread going on where you asked this question

Yeah. You could have added this question to the previous thread. It would keep things nice and organized.

Also, questions about baptism should probably go in the Liturgy and Sacrament’s sub-forum. Any questions about: “The Eucharist, Mass, baptism, confession, abuses, Vatican rules” can go there.

And in all honesty Chuck, your religion says “Roman Catholic/Baptist”, but you are not Roman Catholic.

 

[starsmurf]

If you’re young and therefore feel that you can’t convert to Catholicism yet, I understand why you are going ahead with the baptism. If you are able to join the Church at this time, then perhaps you should postpone your baptism until you have explored the Catholic Chruch more fully.

I’m praying for you.

 

[eegardner]

If you were baptized with the Trinitarian formula: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” and water, your baptism is valid and it is not required or possible to repeat it. If you went for another baptism you would just be getting wet, nothing more.

If you were not baptized “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” then it is not considered a valid baptism and you would have to be baptized. Not re-baptized, because as has been previously mentioned by others, you can only be baptized one time.

 

[Chuck1]

Hi yes I’m more with starsmurf on this one , yes I need to get the hang of the forum better because I don’t really understand it yet but thanks for everyone’s help

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I always thought that the Baptists (descending from the Anabaptists) rejected the necessity of Baptism for salvation, instead viewing it as a symbol of ones personal faith and love for God (in the same way most Protestants view the Eucharist). If this is the case (and I’m fairly certain it is) even if you are given a water Baptism under the proper Trinitarian formula, the intent (which is a necessity for any Sacrament) is wrong and thus no Sacrament conferred; you would still remain unbaptized.

 

[lewevanhoop]

Wouldn’t this idea of rebaptism simply be a rehash of the old Donatist Heresy?

 

[Cider]

I always thought that the Baptists (descending from the Anabaptists) rejected the necessity of Baptism for salvation, instead viewing it as a symbol of ones personal faith and love for God (in the same way most Protestants view the Eucharist). If this is the case (and I’m fairly certain it is) even if you are given a water Baptism under the proper Trinitarian formula, the intent (which is a necessity for any Sacrament) is wrong and thus no Sacrament conferred; you would still remain unbaptized.

I asked this very question of our parish deacon once and he said they still have the intent to do what the Church does so it’s valid even if as he put it, “they don’t quite understand it the same way we do”.

that is the answer I was told anyway.

obviously that was if it was a baptism by water in the trinitarian form, as you posted.

 

[eegardner]

I always thought that the Baptists (descending from the Anabaptists) rejected the necessity of Baptism for salvation, instead viewing it as a symbol of ones personal faith and love for God (in the same way most Protestants view the Eucharist). If this is the case (and I’m fairly certain it is) even if you are given a water Baptism under the proper Trinitarian formula, the intent (which is a necessity for any Sacrament) is wrong and thus no Sacrament conferred; you would still remain unbaptized.

From this document from the Vatican Website:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

1. Baptism is conferred with water and with a formula which clearly indicates that baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.** It is therefore of the utmost importance for all the disciples of Christ that baptism be administered in this manner by all and that the various Churches and ecclesial Communities arrive as closely as possible at an agreement about its significance and valid celebration.**
2. It is strongly recommended that the dialogue concerning both the significance and the valid celebration of baptism take place between Catholic authorities and those of other Churches and ecclesial Communities at the diocesan or Episcopal Conference levels. Thus it should be possible to arrive at common statements through which they express mutual recognition of baptisms as well as procedures for considering cases in which a doubt may arise as to the validity of a particular baptism.
3. In arriving at these expressions of common agreement, the following points should be kept in mind:

a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church.

 

[TrueLight]

I always thought that the Baptists (descending from the Anabaptists) rejected the necessity of Baptism for salvation, instead viewing it as a symbol of ones personal faith and love for God (in the same way most Protestants view the Eucharist). If this is the case (and I’m fairly certain it is) even if you are given a water Baptism under the proper Trinitarian formula, the intent (which is a necessity for any Sacrament) is wrong and thus no Sacrament conferred; you would still remain unbaptized.

If that’s the case, no Protestant baptism would be valid. At least not any Evangelican baptisms. I don’t know of any Evangelical who believes Baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Zhenia]

I don’t know what the new (post-Vatican II) rules are on baptism, I’m only familiar with the pre-V2 rules.

And those rules said that for baptism to be valid, it had to have proper matter, form and intention. Matter means baptism can only be done with water; form means the baptiser must use the correct form (I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost), and intention means the baptiser must intend to do what the historic Catholic Church intends when She baptises.

If any one of those are missing (as they often are in non-Catholic baptism), the baptism is considered invalid. This is why non-Catholics were (are?) often given conditional baptisms. A baptism of someone who has never been baptised before is called “absolute”.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

If that’s the case, no Protestant baptism would be valid. At least not any Evangelican baptisms. I don’t know of any Evangelical who believes Baptism is necessary for salvation.

They might… they might not; the more mainline Protestant denominations generally have a similar understanding of the necessity of Baptism as the Catholic Church, so it depends upon the intention of the one administering the Baptism. In High Church Anglicanism, Lutheranism and especially Anglo- Catholicism most if not all Baptisms are valid; however in these cases we cannot know, which is why when Protestants (of any denomination) converts they receive a conditional baptism (“If you are not yet baptised, I baptise you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit”). In fact the ONLY other Church we can be sure of having valid Sacraments is the Orthodox Churches (which is why we are allowed to receive them when lacking Catholic ones).

With Baptists we have none of these assurances, as there are three things needed for a Sacrament to be valid, matter, form and intent. If even one of these is lacking, there has been no sacrament conferred

Requirements for a valid Baptism

Matter- pure water

Form- the act of washing along with the proper Trinitarian formula

Intent- for the remission of sins, or at least “doing what the Church does”

The Baptism administered by the Baptist churches

Matter- pure water

Form- the act of washing, with the Trinitarian formula

Intent- a public expression of personal faith or obedience to God; aka the “Believer’s Baptism”. As they are an extreme Protestant sect they assuredly do not intend to do what the Church does.

Due to the lack of proper intent, there has been no baptism and the one being washed remains unbaptised. Baptists due not have valid baptisms.

 

[SecretGarden]

I don’t know where you are in terms of your Catholic exploration but if you are planning on getting baptised inside the Baptist church, make sure you can get some proof in the form of a picture, a video of it, or better yet a piece of paper from your minister stating that it was done in the name of the Holy Trinity. Otherwise if down the road you do decide to join the Catholic church, and you don’t have the documents, the church will not accept it and you might have to be rebaptised either at a separate ceremony or whenever you join the church. Some parishes do it all together while some separate it into sections.

Before you are baptised, it might be a good idea to see if your baptist baptism will be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church because the Church doesn’t recognize all Evangelical Protestants baptisms. I know when I was joining the church, I saved my pastor alot of paper work because I was originally from a mainline Protestant church vs an Evangelical one.

 

[TrueLight]

. In High Church Anglicanism, Lutheranism and especially Anglo- Catholicism most if not all Baptisms are valid; however in these cases we cannot know, which is why when Protestants (of any denomination) converts they receive a conditional baptism (“If you are not yet baptised, I baptise you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit”).

I don’t think that’s standard procedure. Are you SSPX?

 

[eegardner]

I don’t know what the new (post-Vatican II) rules are on baptism, I’m only familiar with the pre-V2 rules.

And those rules said that for baptism to be valid, it had to have proper matter, form and intention. Matter means baptism can only be done with water; form means the baptiser must use the correct form (I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost), and intention means the baptiser must intend to do what the historic Catholic Church intends when She baptises.

If any one of those are missing (as they often are in non-Catholic baptism), the baptism is considered invalid. This is why non-Catholics were (are?) often given conditional baptisms. A baptism of someone who has never been baptised before is called “absolute”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ectory_en.html

Numbers 93, 94 & 95a for Post V2.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I don’t think that’s standard procedure. Are you SSPX?

I’m not a member of the SSPX and I don’t attend their chapels (mainly because there are none where I live), however I do support them. And I’m sure it’s standard procedure for new converts from most other denominations (perhaps I was wrong when I said which ones), to receive a conditional Baptism followed by a conditional absolution, even in RCIA.

It’s the same logic (and desire for absolute certainty for the validity of sacraments) that causes former Anglican ministers to receive unconditional ordinations if they want to be Catholic priests, while (most) former Old Catholic priests would have to receive a conditional ordination, while a former Orthodox priest would require neither as he would already have a valid ordination (with about as much certainty as a Catholic priest).

 

[CopyKat]

I thought that conditional baptism is only given when there is a question as to whether the first baptism was said using the trinitarian formula…