Do Laypersons (Regular Church members) have freedom to baptize people into Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoshuaLinfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JoshuaLinfoot

Guest
Hello,

First let me just clarify that I am currently studying as much as I can, it’s a slow process, Catholicism. It’s history, mythology, beliefs, etc. My current denomination (Seventh-day Adventist) has left me void of a connection to God. It seems surface level and very “it’s just me and Jesus” kind of denomination.

Ok the question. A movement seems to be spreading through one of my local SDA churches. Various young adults have been baptizing new members. They are typically baptizing their friends that they have lead to Christ. These are literally young adults. No ordained pastors, just really “Jesus Loving” excited for their faith young adults. I haven’t seen any criticism from any of the local pastors.
I’ve asked a SDA pastor friend of mine what he thinks of it and he was excited and all for it, “let the kids spread the gospel!” Kind of attitude. I asked him if he thinks it’s biblical and he said he thinks it is, but under specific circumstances. He never explained to me what he thinks those specific circumstances are. It just seems odd and leaves me feeling weird, that something like this is spreading within what use to be my denomination. I don’t actually view myself as an SDA anymore.

Im curious what Catholicism thinks. I understand that under some circumstances it’s ok for anyone to baptize. Like under death and such. But a movement seems disingenuous and something that supersedes the established order of the sacrament of baptism.
 
That’s what I thought. I guess this movement will go into my excel folder of why Adventism isn’t true.
 
I am a Catholic, and I don’t think anything would persuade me to become a Seventh Day Adventist. However, it seems a little odd to me to regard the method of administering baptism to be evidence that SDA is not the right kind of Christianity to be following. So, while I would encourage anyone who is considering becoming Catholic, I would not consider this to be the most compelling reason to do so.

We don’t consider SDA ministers to be validly ordained anyway, so baptism being performed by an SDA layperson doesn’t strike me as very different from baptism by an SDA minister. It sounds like the laypeople conferring the sacrament are doing so for a good reason, not just on a whim or for a trivial reason. To be sure, this would not be okay in the Catholic Church, where we have bishops and priests as the ordinary ministers of the sacrament, but in the SDA context it doesn’t sound like a bad thing. Many of the more Low Church Protestant denominations allow their Holy Communion to be celebrated by laypeople. Again, this is not an option for Catholics, but I don’t see Communion celebrated by a layperson to be any more evidence of error than Communion celebrated by a Protestant minister.

I think you need to think about what’s drawing you toward Catholicism rather than what’s driving you away from SDA.
 
Baptism isn’t the only thing. I have an excel spreadsheet on basically every Catholic belief I can think of as well as every SDA belief I can think of. I contrast the differences. SDA baptism is turning out to be quite different than Catholic baptism. I’m doing this because SDA is so vehemently anti-Catholic, I wanted to know what Catholics actually believed. SDA’s idea about baptism isn’t the only thing driving me from that denomination. Or more just a small oddity. The big ones are the Eucharist, the resurrection, Mary and Sunday. Baptism is just a side adventure.
 
This is actually really helpful because of the article suggestions down at the bottom. Thanks!
 
Anybody can validly baptize another person if it’s done with that specific intent and is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Catholics believe laypersons should not do so unless the person being baptized is in serious danger.
 
JoshuaLinfoot said:
I understand that under some circumstances it’s ok for anyone to baptize. Like under death and such. But a movement seems disingenuous and something that supersedes the established order of the sacrament of baptism.
Click to expand...
A priest or deacon is the ordinary minister of baptism. However, in danger of death or where a priest or deacon is unavailable, anyone can baptise and there are some lay people (non-ministers) who have been specially commissioned for this in places where there is a shortage of priests. As long as it’s done according to the proper formula and method, then a baptism is valid regardless of who does it/ However, baptism confers membership in the Church and consequence responsibilities and rights and so it’s important not just that it’s done properly but also that it’s recorded and that the person (or their parents in the case of an infant) understand its significance.
 
In my Missal, it states Lay Baptism:

Any person, whether man, woman, or child, may baptize a infant, in case of danger of death, - Thus:

Take common water, pour it on the head or face of the child, and while you are pouring it, say the following words:
I baptize thee in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Amen
Click to expand...
 
For example you are going with your friend ( he has to want to become Christian ) to the church and accident happens. Your friend is in grave danger and you can then convert him to Christianity. After you’ve done that you have to tell your Bishop/Priest so that you did that.
 
There is another exception to the rule. That is in the prolonged absence of the priest then the bishop may appoint a layman to do baptisms or in the event of a persecution where this prolonged absence is indefinite then it is conceivable that a layman may baptize the people.
 
I used to have an Evangelical friend who complained about “Baptists.” (not all, just some) People would be born again in Baptism, and then left as orphans, without any care or follow up.

This captures the problem very well. The baptisms may be valid, but we do not leave the newborn to fend for themselves. The Church, mother of the baptized, wishes to care for them and teach them how to live their faith. Baptism is a beginning, not an isolated event.
 
SDA practices believer’s baptism, which is common in many Protestant denominations. Apart from that, baptism is surely one of the things that we actually have in common. SDA baptize with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An SDA baptism is therefore recognized as valid by the Catholic Church.

I’m also not sure how SDA and Catholics differ on the resurrection. I think SDA teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is the same as all major branches of Christianity.

I think you are on firmer ground contrasting things such as:
  • The nature of the Eucharist
  • The authority of the pope
  • Apostolic succession of bishops
  • Validity of the three orders of ministry
  • The seven sacraments, including those not practiced by SDA, such as confirmation, reconciliation, and the anointing of the sick and dying
  • The indisoluble nature of marriage
  • The canon of Scripture
  • The authority of tradition
  • The veneration of the saints and invocation of the prayers of saints and angels
  • Specific devotion to Mary, the Mother of God
  • Purgatory
These are some of the major points of disagreement. I think it’s always useful when comparing the different branches of Christianity to try to see what we have in common. Whenever I meet people from very different Christian denominations, I try to draw out what we have in common. If I go to a Protestant church, I respectfully decline to share in their Communion, but I would join in their hymns and prayers and engage with the theme of the sermon. Similarly, if I pray with someone who isn’t Catholic or very High Church Anglican, I wouldn’t include prayers to Our Lady and the other saints, but I would use the Lord’s Prayer and the Grace, which are taken from the New Testament. I would always warmly congratulate somebody on their baptism, since we recognize the validity of most Christian baptisms and welcome that person into God’s Church, even if they are separated from the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
In an emergency, any person, be they Christian or Hindu or Atheist can validly baptize if they follow the emergency baptism instructions.
 
Anyone can validly baptize. That’s why we even accept many non-Catholic baptisms as valid. However, in order to ensure the integrity of the sacrament and to have appropriate rites accompany it, Church law limits its licit administration to clergy under normal circumstances. Others above have mentioned the exceptional circumstances where other baptize licitly as well.
 
Ps there’s also baptism of desire and baptism of blood which don’t even require any human intervention except the desire/action of the one being baptised. (these are a last resort though when ordinary access to the public Sacrament of baptism preferably by a Catholic priest is not possible).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top