Baptism Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleHistorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BibleHistorian

Guest
Does the orthodoxy of the priest baptizing someone affect the validity of the sacrament? For example, is a priest were to openly deny/question the True Presence, and one knew about this, and was then baptized, would the baptism be invalid.

Thanks and God bless 🙂
 
The efficacy of the Sacraments is not dependent on the holiness or worthiness of the priest administering them. The exception to this would be if the priest was laicized, then the man in question would not be able to perform the Sacraments unless it was an emergency and no other priest could be found. But as far as I know baptisms (again in the event of an emergency) can be performed by any baptized Christian.

With all that said, I think it is unlikely in the highest degree that there would be an instance where an ordained priest’s baptism of an individual would be invalid as long as the person was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 
BibleHistorian said:
Does the orthodoxy of the priest baptizing someone affect the validity of the sacrament? For example, is a priest were to openly deny/question the True Presence, and one knew about this, and was then baptized, would the baptism be invalid.

Thanks and God bless 🙂
Click to expand...
In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have 4 things: proper form, proper intent, proper representative, and proper matter. (FIRM)

As long as the priest (who would be a proper representative) uses water (proper matter, as opposed to something like milk, which is improper matter) while saying the Trinitarian Formula (proper form) with the intent to baptize as the Church baptizes (proper intent), then yes, the sacrament of Baptism is valid. Belief in the Real Presence is not required of the one who baptizes; consider the various non-Catholic Christian denominations who do not believe in the Real Presence and yet have valid Baptism. Also, knowing the priest questions or does not believe in the Real Presence does not affect the validity of the sacrament, either.

God Bless!🙂
 
Considering that an atheist can validly baptize someone, given the right intentions and using the trinitarian formula and extreme circumstances, I’d say orthodoxy of a priest doesn’t affect baptism, but it does matter because our priests should be spiritual and theological leaders.
 
BibleHistorian said:
Does the orthodoxy of the priest baptizing someone affect the validity of the sacrament? For example, is a priest were to openly deny/question the True Presence, and one knew about this, and was then baptized, would the baptism be invalid.

Thanks and God bless 🙂
Click to expand...
No.
 
Long story short, ANYONE can Baptize someone requesting it, (or parents requesting of a child) in life-threatening circumstances. ANYONE.

In the case of a laicized Priest, he would fall into the category of anyone, in a life threatening situation. He could also issue General Absolution in the same situation if the person was already Baptized. These are the only two Sacraments a laicized Priest could administer, practically speaking. Simply because of time and circumstance. Any other situation would be time enough to have a Priest in good standing (can’t think of a better way of describing this) come and administer the Sacraments. If the person in question were to make a full recovery, they would be obliged to seek the full Baptism rite, (anointing, prayers etc.) or in the case of general absolution, to seek a full Sacramental Confession (the full confession of the sins and act of contrition).

Hope any of this helps.

God Bless you

j
 
The emergency baptism would not be repeated any more than a baptism by another religious group (as long as we recognize their baptisms). The only time someone is baptized as you note is when there is not clear evidence that they were baptized before; those are usually due to lack of any written evidence that the person was baptized before, but they were a member of a Church that baptizes, and they think they may have been baptized. Then, the Church does a conditional baptism, and the words “conditonal;” are used during the ceremony.

Once baptized, always baptized.

And if the laicized priest heard the confession, he would not be administering a general absolution. It would be a specific one.

Why the Church does not want grandma baptizing the grandchildren when the children refuse to have them baptized: because of records.
 
otjm said:
The emergency baptism would not be repeated any more than a baptism by another religious group (as long as we recognize their baptisms). The only time someone is baptized as you note is when there is not clear evidence that they were baptized before; those are usually due to lack of any written evidence that the person was baptized before, but they were a member of a Church that baptizes, and they think they may have been baptized. Then, the Church does a conditional baptism, and the words “conditonal;” are used during the ceremony.

Once baptized, always baptized.

And if the laicized priest heard the confession, he would not be administering a general absolution. It would be a specific one.

Why the Church does not want grandma baptizing the grandchildren when the children refuse to have them baptized: because of records.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am well aware of once validly baptized always baptized. However there are other aspects of the rite of baptism that should be finished and the Rite of Baptism includes and makes provisions for that.

In the case of the laicized priest, I was speaking from a practical point of view that if someone is that bad off that they can’t wait for a Priest in good standing, and the only other option at hand is for a laicized Priest chances are good the situation is so dire that for the sake of time, general absolution would be given. As with all cases of general absolution, should the emergency pass, and the recipient is able to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, then that person has the obligation to go and confess those sins and receive the full grace that accompanies that Sacrament.
 
jason56716 said:
Yes, I am well aware of once validly baptized always baptized. However there are other aspects of the rite of baptism that should be finished and the Rite of Baptism includes and makes provisions for that.

In the case of the laicized priest, I was speaking from a practical point of view that if someone is that bad off that they can’t wait for a Priest in good standing, and the only other option at hand is for a laicized Priest chances are good the situation is so dire that for the sake of time, general absolution would be given. As with all cases of general absolution, should the emergency pass, and the recipient is able to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, then that person has the obligation to go and confess those sins and receive the full grace that accompanies that Sacrament.
Click to expand...
I was assuming something such as coming on an auto accident in a remote location. General absolution by anyone requires specific absolution, whether the priest is laicized or not. But in the accident scenario, it is entirely possible he could and would give specific absolution.
 
If a doctor were in bad health, the prescription he gave you would still work.

Similar idea… secular example, a la Scott Hahn. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top