Conditional sacraments

[camkutz]

I received Anglican baptism, and was supposed to receive conditional baptism before my confirmation, I never did however because a new priest came… is there any point in taking this up with a priest and asking for conditional sacraments?
The Anglican baptism is seen as valid however there are obviously doubts about it

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

A conditional baptism is done only if there is serious doubt about whether the person has been baptized or not. See canon law:

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

Is there doubt about your baptism?

You said, “* was supposed to receive conditional baptism before my confirmation, I never did however because a new priest came.” Does that mean that after the new priest came you were received into the Church, confirmed, and received the Eucharist? If so, there must have been certainty about your baptism.*

 

[Thomas_White]

I received Anglican baptism, and was supposed to receive conditional baptism before my confirmation, I never did however because a new priest came… is there any point in taking this up with a priest and asking for conditional sacraments?
The Anglican baptism is seen as valid however there are obviously doubts about it

How can it be that the Anglican baptism is both seen as valid and yet there are “obviously doubts about it”? It would not seem it could be both cases. Do you know why, specifically, there were doubts about the Anglican baptism? Or was the doubt perhaps something that was only mentioned without specifics? Or was it maybe only implied when you were informed that the baptism would be conditional?

 

[thistle]

I received Anglican baptism, and was supposed to receive conditional baptism before my confirmation, I never did however because a new priest came… is there any point in taking this up with a priest and asking for conditional sacraments?
The Anglican baptism is seen as valid however there are obviously doubts about it

The Anglican baptism is valid and there are no doubts about it.

 

[camkutz]

There are doubts about it because although the Anglican Church has it’s code of practice and own rubrics to follow, I’ve been to several Anglican baptisms before where the vicar has only sprinkled one or something not supposed to happen
I’ve emailed the one who baptized me anyway and he assured me he’s followed what the Church expected of him

 

[thistle]

There are doubts about it because although the Anglican Church has it’s code of practice and own rubrics to follow, I’ve been to several Anglican baptisms before where the vicar has only sprinkled one or something not supposed to happen
I’ve emailed the one who baptized me anyway and he assured me he’s followed what the Church expected of him

The Catholic Church accepts the Anglican baptism as VALID.

 

[exnihilo]

There are doubts about it because although the Anglican Church has it’s code of practice and own rubrics to follow, I’ve been to several Anglican baptisms before where the vicar has only sprinkled one or something not supposed to happen

Sprinkling certainly does happen in some churches. I think the Presbyterian church is one that practices sprinkling, or at least some do. It seems there are three broad categories of baptism, immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. Sometimes when people discuss it I’m not sure if they distinguish between pouring and sprinkling. I’m not really sure exactly what acceptable sprinkling would be as I’ve never found a good description of the action. I personally have witnessed baptisms that I think would be in the sprinkling category but are more of a mopping action. The minister wets his fingers and then rubs the forehead. He doesn’t really sprinkle the child unless some water is dripping from his fingers prior to the mopping action. I’m not sure of the amount of water.

The Catholic Church accepts the Anglican baptism as VALID.

If the particular baptism follows the requirements. The general practice of the Anglican church would be valid. But certain baptisms could be done improperly.

 

[thistle]

Sprinkling certainly does happen in some churches. I think the Presbyterian church is one that practices sprinkling, or at least some do. It seems there are three broad categories of baptism, immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. Sometimes when people discuss it I’m not sure if they distinguish between pouring and sprinkling. I’m not really sure exactly what acceptable sprinkling would be as I’ve never found a good description of the action. I personally have witnessed baptisms that I think would be in the sprinkling category but are more of a mopping action. The minister wets his fingers and then rubs the forehead. He doesn’t really sprinkle the child unless some water is dripping from his fingers prior to the mopping action. I’m not sure of the amount of water.

If the particular baptism follows the requirements. The general practice of the Anglican church would be valid. But certain baptisms could be done improperly.

That has even happened in the Catholic Church but that is down to an individual priest not doing it properly. As you say, if the baptism is done as per requirements it is valid.