Conditional Baptism

[aubreyL]

Hey Everyone!

I have a question about conditional baptism…

I understand that the Church says someone must be conditionally baptized just to make sure that they were baptized in the right way.

BUT, how do you explain to someone why they would have to be conditionally baptized to join the Church( in this case the priest really did tell them they would have to be conditionally baptized) when they know in the heart that their baptism was done in the right way…?

It’s a very hard thing to accept…and I can see still feeling a little guilty even if I went ahead and accepted it…

Thanks so much for your help! God Bless!!

 

[David_Zampino]

Hey Everyone!

I have a question about conditional baptism…

I understand that the Church says someone must be conditionally baptized just to make sure that they were baptized in the right way.

BUT, how do you explain to someone why they would have to be conditionally baptized to join the Church( in this case the priest really did tell them they would have to be conditionally baptized) when they know in the heart that their baptism was done in the right way…?

It’s a very hard thing to accept…and I can see still feeling a little guilty even if I went ahead and accepted it…

Thanks so much for your help! God Bless!!

For a baptism to be valid, it must be performed with water using the Trinitarian formula (I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). While most Protestant bodies do baptize in this fashion, there are a few Pentecostal sects which baptize in the Name of Jesus only. In this case, the priest would baptize absolutely.

If there is a question about the validity of the baptism, the priest would say words to the effect of “If you have not already been baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, etc.” If your original baptism was valid – you just got your head wet. If your original baptism was not valid – you were just baptized.

Sometimes, a priest will require a conditional baptism if records of a valid baptism cannot be found (or didn’t exist in the first place). Sometimes records are lost or destroyed. Each situation is different, and is taken on a case-by-case basis.

If your priest is requesting conditional baptism, my guess is he shares one of these listed concerns. It is no reflection on you as a person or on the state of your heart and soul.

Blessings,

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I would say a couple of things 1) A conditional Baptism is because we believe you were baptized but cannot prove it. It is too important to work on a maybe bases. 2) I know many cases have happen of people who truly believed they were baptized but actually were not baptized. This is because they attend church, and they saw baptisms but records show they themselves were never baptized. Now some of those people were truly hurt when this came to be understood. I would say please do not be hurt either way.

 

[Centos]

I would say a couple of things 1) A conditional Baptism is because we believe you were baptized but cannot prove it. It is too important to work on a maybe bases. 2) I know many cases have happen of people who truly believed they were baptized but actually were not baptized. This is because they attend church, and they saw baptisms but records show they themselves were never baptized. Now some of those people were truly hurt when this came to be understood. I would say please do not be hurt either way.

In my case, my brother and I (twins) were baptized in a Protestant church on the same day. We were baptized for the right reason (remission of sins), it was an immersion baptism in water, but one of us was baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” while the other was baptized “in the Name of Jesus.” Neither of us could remember which was which – so when I entered the Catholic Church I was more than happy to be conditionally baptized after a general confession.

May God be with you

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hey Everyone!

I have a question about conditional baptism…

I understand that the Church says someone must be conditionally baptized just to make sure that they were baptized in the right way.

BUT, how do you explain to someone why they would have to be conditionally baptized to join the Church( in this case the priest really did tell them they would have to be conditionally baptized) when they know in the heart that their baptism was done in the right way…?

It’s a very hard thing to accept…and I can see still feeling a little guilty even if I went ahead and accepted it…

Thanks so much for your help! God Bless!!

A Conditional Baptism is necessary when after serious investigation there is reasonable doubt about the validity of the original Baptism. It is not done “just to make sure”, it is done (and always privately) only when there is serious concern.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In my case, my brother and I (twins) were baptized in a Protestant church on the same day. We were baptized for the right reason (remission of sins), it was an immersion baptism in water, but one of us was baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” while the other was baptized “in the Name of Jesus.” Neither of us could remember which was which – so when I entered the Catholic Church I was more than happy to be conditionally baptized after a general confession.

May God be with you

It goes to show a million things can happen. I am glad you and your brother handled the situation wisely.

 

[aubreyL]

Hi Everyone!

Thanks very much for all your answers!

 

[asteroid]

In my case, my brother and I (twins) were baptized in a Protestant church on the same day. We were baptized for the right reason (remission of sins), it was an immersion baptism in water, but one of us was baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” while the other was baptized “in the Name of Jesus.” Neither of us could remember which was which – so when I entered the Catholic Church I was more than happy to be conditionally baptized after a general confession.

May God be with you

This isn’t a question about your experiences but the phrase “the right reason” set me thinking.

In the Catholic church we baptise for the remission of sins, in which way we’re born again, into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (as in Rom6), into the church and so on.

But what about churches who treat baptism simply as a sign of outward faith, done because Jesus commanded it as an ordinance, rather than because baptism has any practical effects beyond being a good witness to others? Since in order for a baptism to be valid it has to be done for the right reasons, with the right intent, can baptisms in these churches be called valid under any circumstances and if so why? After all, the intent is very different to that in the Catholic or Orthodox church.

The intent in many churches is to obey Jesus, giving an outward witness of an inner truth, without affecting that truth in the slightest. The baptism may be Trinitarian, but is the intent there? Can this truly be a valid baptism if baptism is understood to be something quite different to what it actually is? Are people actually united in the one mystical body through baptism if the intent and understanding of the action is very, very different.

Yes, I’ve been wondering about this for a while now!

It doesn’t affect me personally as I was conditionally baptised four years ago after being baptised - falsely I strongly believe - in 1990 and then in 1996 by the Jesus Army in the UK. SO whatever the case may be, I’m baptised now. Hoorah.

 

[David_Zampino]

This isn’t a question about your experiences but the phrase “the right reason” set me thinking.

In the Catholic church we baptise for the remission of sins, in which way we’re born again, into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (as in Rom6), into the church and so on.

But what about churches who treat baptism simply as a sign of outward faith, done because Jesus commanded it as an ordinance, rather than because baptism has any practical effects beyond being a good witness to others? Since in order for a baptism to be valid it has to be done for the right reasons, with the right intent, can baptisms in these churches be called valid under any circumstances and if so why? After all, the intent is very different to that in the Catholic or Orthodox church.

The intent in many churches is to obey Jesus, giving an outward witness of an inner truth, without affecting that truth in the slightest. The baptism may be Trinitarian, but is the intent there? Can this truly be a valid baptism if baptism is understood to be something quite different to what it actually is? Are people actually united in the one mystical body through baptism if the intent and understanding of the action is very, very different.

Yes, I’ve been wondering about this for a while now!

It doesn’t affect me personally as I was conditionally baptised four years ago after being baptised - falsely I strongly believe - in 1990 and then in 1996 by the Jesus Army in the UK. SO whatever the case may be, I’m baptised now. Hoorah.

You make good points, but . . .

Even among the Protestant denominations, many, many, many, while parting with Rome on other issues, still accepted an understanding of Baptismal regeneration, including Anglicans, Lutherans, and many Reformed bodies. (Indeed, the otherwise quite wacky “Church of Christ” – an American denomination dating to the 1850’s – preaches Baptismal regeneration.)

“Intent” can be tricky to pin down – as only God knows the heart.