Confused about the validity of Protestant baptism

[Matthew_Holford]

I wouldn’t think that one had to have the intent of the Church in this matter …

It is necessary. Without the correct intent, i.e. to do as the Church does, the baptism would be invalid.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It is necessary. Without the correct intent, i.e. to do as the Church does, the baptism would be invalid.

It seemed to me that it was prior to any Church designation and thus didn’t have a Church intent attached to it, but

The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs.

in Catholic Encyclopedia “Baptism” seems to answer this confusion for me. It was all given to the Church to oversee, thanks.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It seemed to me that it was prior to any Church designation and thus didn’t have a Church intent attached to it, but in Catholic Encyclopedia “Baptism” seems to answer this confusion for me. It was all given to the Church to oversee, thanks.

As your cited quotation says it needs the correct intent. All the sacraments require, as one of the things needed for validity, the proper intent of its minister(s).

 

[markomalley]

As Catholics, we recognize the baptism of Protestants, if they have been baptized in water “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If the person baptized belongs to a Protestant church that does not believe baptism to be a regenerating sacrament, but only a public witness and ordinance symbolizing a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then in what sense has that person been baptized? Do we “accept” all Protestant baptisms as long as the proper form has been followed? I must be missing something . . .

The intention issue is a really good, pertinent issue.

Most non-Catholic Christian groups use the Trinitarian formula. All use water (to my knowledge, at least).

But, there are many of these groups who claim to practice baptism merely as an ordinance and deny that there is any sacramental character to the act. They believe that the regeneration happens when one has a “born again” experience and that the reason that one is baptized is either as a “public testimony” to one’s faith or that they baptize because the Lord commanded it…and not for any other reason.

In those cases, I don’t know that the intention requirement for validity is met. (Form, Matter, and Intent)

In practice, I haven’t ever seen that issue raised by a pastor who is confirming whether a person’s prior baptism is valid or not (“form” and “matter” are the only real questions I have seen addressed). But I have always wondered in the back of my head whether the “intent” question shouldn’t be more of an issue…at least enough of an issue for them to do a “conditional” baptism when the person is received into the Church.