How can Protestant baptisms be valid if

[ConstantineTG]

I agree. Leaving stuff up to chance isn’t worth it, even if the convert comes from a Protestant community that does baptize with intent of confecting a sacrament. And that’s exactly what it is, leaving it up to chance. Like I said, conditional baptism hurts nothing. If the person is already baptized, nothing happens. If the person is not, it baptizes him. It’s an extremely valuable insurance policy.

Regardless of what is standard practice in a Protestant community regarding baptism, we just don’t know with absolute certainty of what happened. We know with absolute certainty that if baptized by a Catholic priest or a deacon, then the person is, indeed, baptized. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

I don’t know why we give conditional baptisms just to be sure to people who are in danger of dying, are baptized by a family member or someone else, and then make a recovery. It seems a bit unfair, for this kind of person to be given a conditional baptism, but then give the convert’s baptizer the lame benefit of the doubt. One has a backup, the and the other person’s soul could potentially be in grave danger. I think perhaps this whole thing developed as an apology to Protestants for Catholics being “snooty” with their baptisms. Whatever the reason, though, it’s not worth the risk.

For the millionth time, I don’t doubt that Protestants can baptize validly. But when a Protestant converts, it’s NOT worth giving his or her baptizer the benefit of the doubt when we have such a simple, easy way of making sure.

We don’t agree with a lot of things, but we agree on this one. Baptism is too important to leave it to chance. I will trust Orthodox baptism, but not Protestant ones. Especially today when its Baptism formula free-for-all. With the “in Jesus’ name only” baptizers and the politically correct crowd of “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”, to the heretic feminist using feminine attributes on God. Do we really want to take a chance?

 

[TrueLight]

We don’t agree with a lot of things, but we agree on this one. Baptism is too important to leave it to chance. I will trust Orthodox baptism, but not Protestant ones. Especially today when its Baptism formula free-for-all. With the “in Jesus’ name only” baptizers and the politically correct crowd of “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”, to the heretic feminist using feminine attributes on God. Do we really want to take a chance?

Of course you would trust an Orthodox baptism. Why wouldn’t you?

I’m pretty sure most priests, in determining validity of baptism, asks which words were used and if there is any doubt, do conditional baptisms.

It’s a good thing I’m not scrupulous. These sorts of comments sow doubt and confusion among the faithful.

Wait… I did say I was done with this thread.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Of course you would trust an Orthodox baptism. Why wouldn’t you?

I’m pretty sure most priests, in determining validity of baptism, asks which words were used and if there is any doubt, do conditional baptisms.

It’s a good thing I’m not scrupulous. These sorts of comments sow doubt and confusion among the faithful.

Wait… I did say I was done with this thread.

Yeah, but the bad part is, in many cases, making these determinations is left up to the RCIA lay person Director.

 

[TrueLight]

Yeah, but the bad part is, in many cases, making these determinations is left up to the RCIA lay person Director.

Actually, I would have no problem if I had been told, the policy of the Church is for converts to undergo a conditional baptism just in case.

However, that is not Church teaching and like I said before, this sort of thing was discussed even in St. Augustine’s time.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually, I would have no problem if I had been told, the policy of the Church is for converts to undergo a conditional baptism just in case.

Yeah, that would be great.

 

[Vico]

The reason re-baptism has to be done with the Mormons converting to Catholic is that they hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, and that Christ did not institute baptism, so when they baptise they are not doing what the Church intends. This illustrates one way that baptism can be invalid.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The reason re-baptism has to be done with the Mormons converting to Catholic is that they hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, and that Christ did not institute baptism, so when they baptise they are not doing what the Church intends. This illustrates one way that baptism can be invalid.

Yeah, but I’m also afraid that there are many more cases than that, and that there are many converts who are not actually baptized, but are nevertheless brought into the Church by confirmation, and are walking around thinking they’re properly baptized.

 

[Ben_F]

I was Baptised twice. Not conditionally. Baptist one and Catholic one. This bothered me for a long time. Now I am very happy that I KNOW that I only received ONE Baptism for my sins. The real one. The Baptist one was just a symbol. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course you would trust an Orthodox baptism. Why wouldn’t you?

I’m pretty sure most priests, in determining validity of baptism, asks which words were used and if there is any doubt, do conditional baptisms.

It’s a good thing I’m not scrupulous. These sorts of comments sow doubt and confusion among the faithful.

Wait… I did say I was done with this thread.

Well, the Catholic Church has said that Orthodox Sacraments, all 7 of them, are valid. So its not just me who trusts Orthodox baptisms. I mean, if we believe they have a valid Eucharist, why would we doubt their Baptism?

 

[Vico]

Yeah, but I’m also afraid that there are many more cases than that, and that there are many converts who are not actually baptized, but are nevertheless brought into the Church by confirmation, and are walking around thinking they’re properly baptized.

There are those baptisms which are invalid because of not using water, and even the wrong trinitarian formula.

Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit conforms to the command of the Lord found at the end of Matthew’s Gospel: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The Church has no right to change what Christ himself has instituted. Therefore, any Baptism is invalid when it does not contain the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, with the distinct expression of the three Persons with their respective names. Throughout the ages, the Magisterium of the Church has repeatedly taught that Christian Baptism is administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. …
The liturgical documents on the Rite of Baptism do not offer alternatives to the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit. …
The baptismal formula must adequately express the Trinitarian faith: approximate formulas cannot do this.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yep. I’m just quite concerned because things like these are often left up to lay RCIA directors that volunteer a few hours a week, are minimally trained, and are often not at all experts on or even familiar with the Code of Canon Law. I’d sometimes converse with Father and mention something my RCIA director said, and many times, he’d say something like, “Oh, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” and I’d be like, “Well, then why on Earth is he the RCIA director and why is he let to decide massively important things?”

Sounds like your issue is not with church teaching, but with the RCIA director at your parish. I too am very suprised that your priest would speak about him like that (at all!), but then have him remain in that position.

I don’t doubt Protestant baptisms can be valid. I know they can be. But I also don’t doubt that there are some converts walking around without a proper baptism because of the failings of a deficient RCIA director. I don’t think there are a lot of them, but still. And I don’t think this just needs to be put off with the, “God loves us, be charitable,” line. This is serious, and I am going to ask my priest about it.

If anyone was baptized incorrectly, and brought into the church without a conditional baptism, than the failing is the pastor’s, not the RCIA director’s.

No one is putting this off with “God loves us, be charitable”. But without specific knowledge in a specific case, you also can’t go around saying every person who was evangalical has an improper baptism.

Yeah, there are quite a few Protestant churches in which ministers truly believe and truly teach that baptism is just symbolic, without any real value besides a picture opportunity, then go ahead and baptizes people. By itself, that’s fine, I guess, but when one of those people come to convert to Catholicism, that’s where it’s worrisome.

This is one of the problems with lay people “teaching” stuff. I was like when I came to RCIA for my first meeting and it was a husband and wife doing the talking.

Lay people can be excellent teachers. Lay people are cannon lawyers, theologians, spiritual directors, etc. Just because someone is ordained does not automatically make them more knowledgeable or a better teacher. Again, your issue seems to be with the RCIA director at your parish. Do speak to your priest about that. Also, find out what course are available to you through your diocese, closest seminary, religious house, or online. Get training yourself and then offer to take on the RCIA job.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It’s just like if a priest intends to consecrate hosts on the corporal, and one is not on it, and he puts it in the ciborium after he consecrates, that doesn’t make it suddenly the Body of Christ, because he didn’t intend to consecrate it, regardless of if it was an accident or not.

However that also cuts both ways. If the priest doesn’t see the ciborium on the corporal and has no idea its there, its still consecrated…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I agree. Leaving stuff up to chance isn’t worth it, even if the convert comes from a Protestant community that does baptize with intent of confecting a sacrament. And that’s exactly what it is, leaving it up to chance. Like I said, conditional baptism hurts nothing. If the person is already baptized, nothing happens. If the person is not, it baptizes him. It’s an extremely valuable insurance policy.

The Church does not view it that way. Baptism confers an indelible mark and the Church has no desire to confuse people over the fact that there is one baptism. Indeed, even canon law puts the breaks on using conditional baptism as “an extremely valuable insurance policy.”

Canon 869 §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.

Notice it does not say “should not” or “recommended not” rather is says “must not.” Any second attempt at baptism is a serious matter and needs a serious reason.

Regardless of what is standard practice in a Protestant community regarding baptism, we just don’t know with absolute certainty of what happened. We know with absolute certainty that if baptized by a Catholic priest or a deacon, then the person is, indeed, baptized. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

Actually we do know what the rituals of most Protestant communities are and what their theology of baptism is. Thus we have a basic presumption of validity for some of them, but not all.
Secondly, you don’t know what the particular Catholic priest or deacon said or intended at the baptism of any individual. He could have baptized the individual “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” and thus rendered it invalid.

I think perhaps this whole thing developed as an apology to Protestants for Catholics being “snooty” with their baptisms. Whatever the reason, though, it’s not worth the risk.

No, it has been the constant and ancient tradition of the Church.

For the millionth time, I don’t doubt that Protestants can baptize validly. But when a Protestant converts, it’s NOT worth giving his or her baptizer the benefit of the doubt when we have such a simple, easy way of making sure.

The Church takes a larger view on the issue.

 

[LamarT]

I find it disingenuous of people to throw out the spiritual validity of baptisms in the Baptist Church or Protestant Churches. Saying it is just for show is to pretend to the mind and faith of the Minister and the baptized. If an Ordained Minister or Pastor of a Christian Church Baptizes in water, in the name of the father, son and the holy ghost, and with recognition of the holiness of the words of Jesus Christ and to renounce Satan then of course it is a Christian ceremony. Respect for Christian religions is one of our sincere and honest reflections upon other Christian faiths.

As I understand the Catechism the Catholic Church respects that only one baptism is necessary in the our spiritual odyssey of loving God, of learning to pray to our most wonderful and compassionate Jesus, of feeling the purity of intention and glory that is the Spirit, of accepting into our hearts, minds and soul the Trinity; that we honor Mary as our threshold to God and the teachings of the Church. Hearing the Prophets and the Gospels with all of our being shows us that Baptism is the fountain and the chalice, the salvation and the saved.

It hurts to read words of disdain for other Christian faiths. We should and do love our Catholic Church, but it does not mean we abstain from respect for others. Learning to pray and love God goes far beyond, in fact it leaves behind, any form of relishing judgements upon our Christian brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church has moved me beyond any galaxy of words expressing Love, expressing God. I am not a cradle Catholic. I am a convert to what I feel is the direct line to Jesus, the Catholic Faith, but it does not give me dominion over the minds of others. Perhaps converts can be the most zealous, and I will take that as a compliment. Perhaps those who found baptism in other faiths to be disingenuous were baptized without purity of intention. This is not the fault of the particular Church, it is the fault of those of us who may not have been in full faith to God. I was one, I felt that I was not moved by the Spirit, that I was moved by the moment, so I was Baptized again at a later age when I was able to feel the presence that all things were in God and created by God, and that I was in fact of and for The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Every time I sit down I say to myself the prayer of “Thank you Jesus, protect my soul.” Does this make me better at sitting than other person? Does it give me power over the chairs of others? Does it give me vision into another soul/heart? No. It makes me a Man in love with God. I am a Catholic and my beloved is the Bible, my Church and my fellow beings. We are all here together in love with our God. Each Sunday after the Our Father prayer and we share the sign of Peace my heart swells.
All I know is that another faithful stands and prays next to me, and that is all the Peace in the world as we shake hands and hugs throughout the congregation, throughout Christendom.

 

[YoungTradCath]

However that also cuts both ways. If the priest doesn’t see the ciborium on the corporal and has no idea its there, its still consecrated…

No, I’m saying, like, the ciborium was on the corporal but one of the hosts was somewhere else on the altar, and the priest’s intent is left to what is on the corporal exclusively.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No, I’m saying, like, the ciborium was on the corporal but one of the hosts was somewhere else on the altar, and the priest’s intent is left to what is on the corporal exclusively.

I understand that, but my point was that the corporal analogy cuts both ways. The priest didn’t specifically intend to consecrate that particular ciborium, thus even though his intention was vague (for everything is in that area) it was still valid.

 

[Usagi]

YoungTradCath, your understanding of the required intent for a valid baptism seems to be far narrower than the Church’s.

The “intent” element of a sacrament, being largely invisible to observers, is always interpreted as broadly as possible. The Church doesn’t want – and presumes, reasonably, that God doesn’t want – the faithful suffering doubt every time they receive a sacrament just because they cannot see into the minister’s heart.

Thus, the required intent for baptism is simply “to do what the Church does when she baptizes.” The would-be minister of baptism doesn’t have to know or agree with what the Church teaches, just intend in a very general way to do “that thing that Christians call baptism.” That seems to be the only way an atheist could validly baptize, and we know that one can.

I can see having increased concern when it comes to denominations that are not merely ignorant but explicitly repudiate and teach against the Catholic doctrine on baptism, but it’s not just individual lay RCIA directors making that determination – the guiding rule of the Church is that non-Catholic Christian baptisms are presumed valid unless specifically declared otherwise, and that conditional baptism is to be reserved for situations of true uncertainty.

For me, it keeps coming back to the fact that an atheist can validly baptize. If Richard Dawkins, confronted with a dying catechumen who asks for baptism, can form the required intent to carry out that request, then the required intent (as defined by the Church) cannot include belief that baptism is regenerative or even that it does anything at all except make someone wet. “I guess I’ll carry out this poor guy’s last request, even though I think him delusional” is apparently enough. And surely, even a Christian minister who believes that baptism has no particular power, but does it because the Lord commanded it, has at least as much claim to valid intent as the helpful atheist.

Usagi