Can someone help me understand this baptism question?

[SMHW]

If the minister had to intend to baptize you in a way the Catholic Church understands the sacrament, then baptisms performed by non-Catholics could never be valid. We, however, do know that such baptisms can be valid. Welcome home!

If the ministers of sacraments had to have the absolute correct beliefs and understanding of the nature of the sacraments to have proper intent then we’d sometimes have to suspect the validity of sacraments administered by bishops, priests, deacons, and Catholic laity.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

If the ministers of sacraments had to have the absolute correct beliefs and understanding of the nature of the sacraments to have proper intent then we’d sometimes have to suspect the validity of sacraments administered by bishops, priests, deacons, and Catholic laity.

True. :hypno:

 

[poche]

talk to the priest about this and if they say you need to be baptized again then so be it.

 

[JerryZ]

I was baptized in a Reformed denomination and, because this was done in the name of the Trinity, I did not have to be re-baptized after converting to Catholicism. However, my former church did not believe that baptism “did anything”; it was symbolic of obedience only.

I am not questioning whether or not my baptism was really valid, but I don’t understand why the Church can accept a baptism if the pastor had no intention of it being regenerative. The requirements for valid baptism include the intention to do what the Church does when She baptizes; shouldn’t this include the “regenerative” part?

I appreciate anyone’s help in better grasping this.

The church is recognizing that the baptism was performed in a valid form and the person that performed has nothing to do with it.
As an anedocte I will tell you that in South America in one country they have this tradition of basically doing a baptism days after a newborn baby arrives. They even have “godfathers” but they are called “water godfathers” it’s a simple ceremony done at the house.
Why this is relevant? Because the Church time and time again has said that the baby so baptized with water and in the name of the Trinity even by a lay person IS properly baptized.
It was a practice that was encouraged when (a) infant mortality was high and (b) priests were far and few between.
But it is a tradition that some people still cling to today.

Soo recaping even you can validly baptize if you follow the proper form, not that the Church encourages you to actually do it except in an emergency.

 

[Gammy1]

Hello, and thank you for this thread because it helped me a lot. I specially appreciate the reflexion that if complete understanding of catholic belief was needed, no baptism from non-catholic would be valid. I find this decisive. Actually this matches a reflexion I just had on Act 8,14-17 while searching a bible passage about confirmation*:
«Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.»
I notice that it is said that they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which could even bring doubt about the use of the trinitarian formula, though I know this is not the catholic interpretation in this case. Whatever, I find it nice we have this wonderfull sacrament of confirmation, which normally can only be given by bishops, and so it’s like make perfect the baptism with no doubt possible, and receive the holy spirit*!