How can Protestant baptisms be valid if

[TrueLight]

Yes, but, no matter how seriously it’s taken, that doesn’t change the view of baptism. Seriousness doesn’t change the intent of what’s going on, and intent is one of the required parts of a valid baptism. And the problem is that many Protestant groups, and certainly the largest among them, don’t view baptism as necessary. That inherently makes their baptism questionable in intent. If the intent to do what the Church does isn’t there, no matter if a Trinitarian formula is used or not, the baptism is invalid in Catholic theology.

You said it yourself, “We didn’t use words like ‘indelible mark.’ In fact, we didn’t use much theology at all…” The intent, necessary for a valid baptism, isn’t there.

I’m only responding to your misrepresentation of how Baptists view baptism.

I am not really debating whether Protestant baptisms are valid or not. But I will say this, you can’t say that the Baptism is invalid in Catholic theology because the Church doesn’t say that.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

What is meant when people refer to men and women coming into “full communion with the Church?”

Coming into full communion with the Catholic Church describes the process for entrance into the Catholic Church for men and women who are baptized Christians but not Roman Catholics. These individuals make a profession of faith but are not baptized again. To prepare for this reception, the people, who are called “candidates,” usually participate in a program to help them understand and experience the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Some preparation may be with catechumens preparing for baptism, but the preparation for candidates is different since they have already been baptized and committed to Jesus Christ, and many have also been active members of other Christian communities.

This is from the USCCB website. usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/

People who have been baptized are Christians.That is what the Church teaches. Christians are not re-baptized because they cannot be made ‘more Christian’ or ‘correct Christians’. Their reception and confirmation into the Catholic church completes their baptism and with their First Communion initiates them completely into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[Vico]

they are only performed with the intention of being a symbol of what has “already occurred?”

For example, baptism at my former semi-mega Baptist church was a bit of a side joke that was seen as an, “Okay, whatever, we’ll do it, but it’s not big deal,” sort of thing, without the intent of confecting a sacrament or an indelible mark on the soul of the person being baptized. Yet, if one of those people were to attend RCIA, the baptism would be valid, would it not, because–at least at this church–the Trinitarian formula was used? But how can it be valid if the intent wasn’t there in the first place?

Yes, it would be invalid if the intention of the adult being baptised, or of the minister of baptism, was not right. From L’Osservatore Romano August 1, 2001:
The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: “The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation” (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. *ibid., *nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

CIC Can. 869
§1 If there is doubt as to whether a person was baptised or whether a baptism was conferred validly, and after serious enquiry this doubt persists, the person is to be baptised conditionally.
§2 Those baptised in a non-catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptised conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister.
§3 If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 a doubt remains about the conferring of the baptism or its validity, baptism is not to be conferred until the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptised, if that person is an adult. Moreover, the reasons for doubting the validity of the earlier baptism should be given to the person or, where an infant is concerned, to the parents.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In the example given by Truelight and the examples I described, the intention of the minister and of the candidate *was *baptism and so the “tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament” applies.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, it would be invalid if the intention of the adult being baptised, or of the minister of baptism, was not right. From L’Osservatore Romano August 1, 2001:
The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: “The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation” (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. *ibid., *nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

Is the L’Osservatore Romano, not a newspaper? Whoever wrote that was expressing their opinion.

If it were true that every protestant convert needed to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, then most protestant converts would have invalid baptisms. The person must have the intention of being baptized. I don’t see any Canon that says that the person must believe that baptism saves you.

 

[Vico]

Is the L’Osservatore Romano, not a newspaper? Whoever wrote that was expressing their opinion.

If it were true that every protestant convert needed to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, then most protestant converts would have invalid baptisms. The person must have the intention of being baptized. I don’t see any Canon that says that the person must believe that baptism saves you.

Yes, it was Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. opinion, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also posted on the Vatican website:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_sac_index.htm

The Dubium:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

 

[YoungTradCath]

However, because it is the Church’s view that Baptism does something is why we do not believe it can be done twice. At this point, the Church says that all trinitarian formula baptism, done with water, are valid unless the candidate or the protestant church says otherwise.

The RCIA director in each parish cannot check on the intent of Pastor Soandso at “Lakeridge Baptist Church” where the candidate was baptized 14 years ago, and so the certificate is accepted as proof.

The Church has made rulings about specific denominations whose baptisms are not acceptable. In the recent past, such a ruling was made about the Mormon church. It would be harder to do so on a blanket level for evangelical baptist or ‘non-denominational’ churches since they hold to so many differing views. Of course, if someone is not baptized, or can’t provide any proof of baptism, the Church will baptize them.

We also need to be careful when we say that the Church teaches that only those who’ve had a water baptism will go to heaven. That is not the complete position. We also have to remember that rules have to be made for the universal church and not just those places where records are easy to come by and every church has a website.

I’m not saying it can be done twice. I know baptism can be done only once. But it ain’t a baptism if not all the requirements are met. A real baptism can only be done once.

And that’s exactly what’s so dangerous. Complacency. “I can’t check.” Well, if you can’t check, conditionally baptize the person. I think every convert should be conditionally baptized if they were previously baptized. It’s safe, and doesn’t hurt a thing.

I’m not arguing that Protestants can’t baptize validly. They can. But the biggest denominations of megachurch Protestantism don’t baptize with intent of doing anything, except making it a good moment for the camera, and if the intent isn’t there, then it isn’t a valid baptism in the Catholic sense.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m only responding to your misrepresentation of how Baptists view baptism.

I am not really debating whether Protestant baptisms are valid or not. But I will say this, you can’t say that the Baptism is invalid in Catholic theology because the Church doesn’t say that.

I know how Baptists view baptism. I was a Baptist, unfortunately.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, it was Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. opinion, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also posted on the Vatican website:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_sac_index.htm

The Dubium:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

Thanks for posting the link.

What you posted earlier was in response to a question on the validity of the baptism of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Notice there are specific questions regarding specific congregations.

Again, from what I have seen, the intention necessary is the intention to be baptized and the intention to baptize.

Otherwise, why would the Church say an atheist can baptize someone in the case of emergency?

An atheist can intend to baptize, and can baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but obviously, is not going to believe baptism saves you.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’m not saying it can be done twice. I know baptism can be done only once. But it ain’t a baptism if not all the requirements are met. A real baptism can only be done once.

And that’s exactly what’s so dangerous. Complacency. “I can’t check.” Well, if you can’t check, conditionally baptize the person. I think every convert should be conditionally baptized if they were previously baptized. It’s safe, and doesn’t hurt a thing.

I’m not arguing that Protestants can’t baptize validly. They can. But the biggest denominations of megachurch Protestantism don’t baptize with intent of doing anything, except making it a good moment for the camera, and if the intent isn’t there, then it isn’t a valid baptism in the Catholic sense.

It’s not complacency on anyone’s part. They are following the Church’s instruction. The Church says that if a person has been baptized with water according to the trinitarian formula and has a certificate from their protestant church (with the specific exceptions noted), than their baptism is valid.

As I said before, the Church has made specific statements about which protestant church’s baptisms are *not *valid, most recently for LDS church. The Church may make a statememnt about additional groups in the future. Until such time, despite what you think, your local parish will accept those baptisms in the name of the universal Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s not complacency on anyone’s part. They are following the Church’s instruction. The Church says that if a person has been baptized with water according to the trinitarian formula and has a certificate from their protestant church (with the specific exceptions noted), than their baptism is valid.

As I said before, the Church has made specific statements about which protestant church’s baptisms are *not *valid, most recently for LDS church. The Church may make a statememnt about additional groups in the future. Until such time, despite what you think, your local parish will accept those baptisms in the name of the universal Church.

It’s not what I think. The Church teaches that sacraments can’t be valid without proper intent.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s not what I think. The Church teaches that sacraments can’t be valid without proper intent.

This is becoming quite circular. I am bowing out soon.

Where does it say what the proper intent for a non-Catholic baptism is? Not assumptions based on your understanding, but where does it say what the proper intent is?

And I noticed you said something like “Thank God, you were not baptized in the baptist church”. I might have paraphrased you more charitably.

So what is your opinion of the thousands (I don’t have numbers) or so of Protestant baptized converts to Catholicism? Are we committing sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist unworthily?

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is becoming quite circular. I am bowing out soon.

Where does it say what the proper intent for a non-Catholic baptism is? Not assumptions based on your understanding, but where does it say what the proper intent is?

And I noticed you said something like “Thank God, you were not baptized in the baptist church”. I might have paraphrased you more charitably.

So what is your opinion of the thousands (I don’t have numbers) or so of Protestant baptized converts to Catholicism? Are we committing sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist unworthily?

Nowhere does it say what the proper intent for a non-Catholic baptism is. I don’t think the Church would publish a document about what non-Catholic baptismal intents are.

I don’t really have an opinion on those people. I don’t think they’re committing sacrilege, no, because they can’t commit sacrilege due to no fault of their own.

My point is that I know what many Protestant baptisms are intended to do by those baptizing. They’re intended to be symbols, and that’s all. If a Protestant congregation teaches that their baptisms are only intended to be symbolic, and that’s all, then that intent isn’t in line with the Church’s, which teaches that baptism does something to the soul. So how can those baptisms be valid?

If Mr. Rev. Protestant minister is thinking, “Oh this doesn’t do anything, these are just empty words,” and teaches his congregation the same, including the one receiving the baptism, but then says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen,” then is the baptism valid? That’s what I’m getting at. If there’s some explanation, I’d love to hear it, and I can accept it. I don’t doubt that the Church accepts these situations, but I have no idea why, since the intent isn’t in line.

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.

This isn’t personal or directed to anyone, so please don’t go there. And I don’t believe charity is just being nice, but that it also means to tell the truth.

 

[TrueLight]

Nowhere does it say what the proper intent for a non-Catholic baptism is. I don’t think the Church would publish a document about what non-Catholic baptismal intents are.

I don’t really have an opinion on those people. I don’t think they’re committing sacrilege, no, because they can’t commit sacrilege due to no fault of their own.

My point is that I know what many Protestant baptisms are intended to do by those baptizing. They’re intended to be symbols, and that’s all. If a Protestant congregation teaches that their baptisms are only intended to be symbolic, and that’s all, then that intent isn’t in line with the Church’s, which teaches that baptism does something to the soul. So how can those baptisms be valid?

If Mr. Rev. Protestant minister is thinking, “Oh this doesn’t do anything, these are just empty words,” and teaches his congregation the same, including the one receiving the baptism, but then says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen,” then is the baptism valid? That’s what I’m getting at. If there’s some explanation, I’d love to hear it, and I can accept it. I don’t doubt that the Church accepts these situations, but I have no idea why, since the intent isn’t in line.

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.

This isn’t personal or directed to anyone, so please don’t go there. And I don’t believe charity is just being nice, but that it also means to tell the truth.

My last comment on this thread:

Please speak to your priest about what a valid Protestant baptism is. I believe you are misinterpreting Church teaching. Please also read St Augustine versus the Donatists.

This isn’t personal or directed to anyone, so please don’t go there. And I don’t believe charity is just being nice, but that it also means to tell the truth.

It’s not about personal or not personal. I believe you are wrong.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I guess the issue that I have is that I don’t know of any protestant churches where the minister truly believes and truly teaches that Baptism is just symbolic and doesn’t have any value - and then goes ahead and baptizes people just for show.

I believe you when you say you do know of such places.

Now that I understand your question better, it is an interesting thought problem. But, we have to be careful not to say that anyone in the Catholic church isn’t doing their job when they accept baptismal certificates from protestant churches. Until the rules change (which they might after study and deliberation), it isn’t our place to question the validity of their baptisms in general. In a specific case, you could speak up if you had “insider information”.

The Catholic church accepts protestant baptisms and calls those people Christians. A baptized Christian is not re-baptized when they enter the Church. Thems the rules.

Speak to your priest if you need more help clarifying.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for posting the link.

What you posted earlier was in response to a question on the validity of the baptism of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Notice there are specific questions regarding specific congregations.

Again, from what I have seen, the intention necessary is the intention to be baptized and the intention to baptize.

Otherwise, why would the Church say an atheist can baptize someone in the case of emergency?

An atheist can intend to baptize, and can baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but obviously, is not going to believe baptism saves you.

Yes, and that is also what broadly means, according to Fr Luis Ladaria, where he stated that is was not a requirement to have the specific understanding in CCC 1257-1261.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, and that is also what broadly means, according to Fr Luis Ladaria, where he stated that is was not a requirement to have the specific understanding in CCC 1257-1261.

Okay.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I guess the issue that I have is that I don’t know of any protestant churches where the minister truly believes and truly teaches that Baptism is just symbolic and doesn’t have any value - and then goes ahead and baptizes people just for show.

I believe you when you say you do know of such places.

Now that I understand your question better, it is an interesting thought problem. But, we have to be careful not to say that anyone in the Catholic church isn’t doing their job when they accept baptismal certificates from protestant churches. Until the rules change (which they might after study and deliberation), it isn’t our place to question the validity of their baptisms in general. In a specific case, you could speak up if you had “insider information”.

The Catholic church accepts protestant baptisms and calls those people Christians. A baptized Christian is not re-baptized when they enter the Church. Thems the rules.

Speak to your priest if you need more help clarifying.

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?”

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.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m 100% for conditional baptism for Protestant converts into Catholicism. Where do I sign the petition form?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m 100% for conditional baptism for Protestant converts into Catholicism. Where do I sign the petition form?

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.