How does an adult convert repent?

[puzzleannie]

I
Since you have been involved with RCIA, your comments?

my answer is always the same, the individual has to speak with the pastor, giving him all the facts about his background, to get an answer specific to his own situation–the pastor, not the RCIA director, catechist, sponsor, relative or other member of the class.

there is no one answer so I gave the general answer, which as usual, may not fit this individual’s situation. if he does not ask, he won’t get a good answer. It is the priest, not me, who determines whether or not the individual who will be conditionally baptized will confess before or after. for that matter it is the priest, not me, who decides whether a conditional baptism is necessary. In actual practices, in the cases where conditional baptism has been done in a parish where I am involved in the RCIA process, it happens sometime before Easter, with only immediate family and sponsor present, and the logistics are that the individual makes first confession afterward, but before confirmation and first communion. that is not my call, that is just how it has been done. So you see my answer will probably not be helpful to someone who will receive different counsel, with very good pastoral reasons, from his own priest.

 

[otjm]

my answer is always the same, the individual has to speak with the pastor, giving him all the facts about his background, to get an answer specific to his own situation–the pastor, not the RCIA director, catechist, sponsor, relative or other member of the class.

there is no one answer so I gave the general answer, which as usual, may not fit this individual’s situation. if he does not ask, he won’t get a good answer. It is the priest, not me, who determines whether or not the individual who will be conditionally baptized will confess before or after. for that matter it is the priest, not me, who decides whether a conditional baptism is necessary. In actual practices, in the cases where conditional baptism has been done in a parish where I am involved in the RCIA process, it happens sometime before Easter, with only immediate family and sponsor present, and the logistics are that the individual makes first confession afterward, but before confirmation and first communion. that is not my call, that is just how it has been done. So you see my answer will probably not be helpful to someone who will receive different counsel, with very good pastoral reasons, from his own priest.

I understand the caveats. Thanks for the response; it helps.

I am not sure the issue has been properly confronted in my parish, which was why I asked.

I would assume, from your comments, that if the priest was fairly certain the individual had not been baptized, that he might proceed on Holy Saturday night; and if there seemed to be a reasonable possibility that they had been baptized, that the conditional baptism would take place some time before, they would make a confession prior to Holy Saturday and (as happens in our parish) would be confirmed Holy Saturday night along with the other Candidates.

In our parish, the priest makes the decisions, but relies on the RCIA staff to bring some of the issues to the table. He is in his 70’s, which may explain that.

Thanks for the help.

 

[diggerdomer]

But a conditional baptism may not be a real baptism, and so confession may be appropriate.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this–meaning that a conditional baptism may not be a real baptism? Thanks.

 

[otjm]

Where does the Catholic Church teach this–meaning that a conditional baptism may not be a real baptism? Thanks.

The Church teaches that there is one baptism.

So, where one is baptized, one is never baptized again; the sacrament is a one-time sacrament.

The Church recognizes the baptisms of most Protestant denominations.

The issue come up when someone approaches the Church to join, and thinks that they were baptized in a Protestant denomination, but have no proof of it. There is no church record of the event and there is no other viable and reliable evidence that they were baptized.

It may be that they were told by their parents that they were baptized, or they were under the impression (interestingly, not all people particularly focus on baptism, especially where they may have been members of a denomination that did not particularly practice infant baptism). In short, there can be a number of reasons that a person thinks they wer baptized but has no proof.

The Church takes baptism very seriously; it wants proof. If there is none, then a conditional baptismal ceremony is had. Thus, the ceremony at the Catholic Church, a conditional baptism, is not a real baptism if the person actually was baptized in the past.

 

[diggerdomer]

TThus, the ceremony at the Catholic Church, a conditional baptism, is not a real baptism if the person actually was baptized in the past.

I disagree.

Show me where the Church teaches…Catechism, liturgical Rite, etc…that any baptism celebrated by the Church is not a real baptism.

 

[KarenElissa]

I disagree.

Show me where the Church teaches…Catechism, liturgical Rite, etc…that any baptism celebrated by the Church is not a real baptism.

otjm tried, but here is my attempt.

Since the Church believes there is only one baptism, any time one would attempt to be “baptized” again isn’t really baptism, but simply a person getting wet. It may look like a baptism, but there is no actual change to the person and no grace is received since that has already happened and can only happen once.

So for someone receiving a conditional baptism, if they have already been baptized, they simply get wet in the conditional baptism, no sin would be removed. If they haven’t been baptized, then the conditional baptism would be an actual baptism and would remove all sin. That is why when one is conditionally baptized, it starts with “If you have not been baptized.”

 

[otjm]

I disagree.

Show me where the Church teaches…Catechism, liturgical Rite, etc…that any baptism celebrated by the Church is not a real baptism.

Your disagreement doesn’t really matter. I have been involved in RCIA for 16 years. That is the answer; if you don’t like it, do a little research.

Why do you think it is called “conditional”?

Sorry, but you are trying my patience. That is the answer - it is “conditional” because it has no effect if the person was baptized before. Do you recite the creed on Sunday? Pay attention to the last half of it. One baptism.

Recited.

Every Sunday.

And if they have not been baptized before, then a conditional baptism - the condition being they have not been baptized before - exists and they are baptized.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I disagree.

Show me where the Church teaches…Catechism, liturgical Rite, etc…that any baptism celebrated by the Church is not a real baptism.

Baptism can only be administered ONCE! If you believe that it can be administered more than once then please provide the evidence to support your claim.

There can be two doubts about Baptism: a doubt of fact and a doubt of validity. Doubt of fact means that there is a serious doubt as to whether any Baptism was administered. With a doubt of validity there is certainty that some rite purporting to be a Baptism was carried out but there is serious doubt about its validity - form, matter, intent.

After diligent enquiries have been made if a doubt of fact or a doubt of validity remains the person has to be baptised conditionally. The condition in conditional Baptism is this: if you have not already been baptised you are baptised by the administration of this conditional Baptism.

Because of the doubts that lead to the administration of conditional Baptism only God knows what effect the conditional Baptism has. If the person was either (a) never baptised or (b) invalidly baptised - the conditional Baptism baptises the person. If the person had been previously baptised and it was valid conditional Baptism has no effect because you cannot be baptised more than once.

So, after conditional baptism it is recommended that the person goes to sacramental confession because we cannot know what effect the conditional Baptism had. If it baptised the person it wiped away all their sins - original and personal (mortal and venial). If it did not baptise them it did not remove their personal sins (mortal and venial) so they need sacramental confession.

This is the law, teaching and theology of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris. If you believe that it is not please support your counter argument with references from official Church documents.

Thank you very much!

 

[diggerdomer]

Baptism can only be administered ONCE! If you believe that it can be administered more than once then please provide the evidence to support your claim.

There can be two doubts about Baptism: a doubt of fact and a doubt of validity. Doubt of fact means that there is a serious doubt as to whether any Baptism was administered. With a doubt of validity there is certainty that some rite purporting to be a Baptism was carried out but there is serious doubt about its validity - form, matter, intent.

After diligent enquiries have been made if a doubt of fact or a doubt of validity remains the person has to be baptised conditionally. The condition in conditional Baptism is this: if you have not already been baptised you are baptised by the administration of this conditional Baptism.

Because of the doubts that lead to the administration of conditional Baptism only God knows what effect the conditional Baptism has. If the person was either (a) never baptised or (b) invalidly baptised - the conditional Baptism baptises the person. If the person had been previously baptised and it was valid conditional Baptism has no effect because you cannot be baptised more than once.

So, after conditional baptism it is recommended that the person goes to sacramental confession because we cannot know what effect the conditional Baptism had. If it baptised the person it wiped away all their sins - original and personal (mortal and venial). If it did not baptise them it did not remove their personal sins (mortal and venial) so they need sacramental confession.

This is the law, teaching and theology of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris. If you believe that it is not please support your counter argument with references from official Church documents.

Thank you very much!

Thanks Karen, otjm, and Matthew. Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I was simply looking for some objective teaching from the Church, but I appreciate your responses anyway. It seems there are none (meaning, no objective clarifications on this issue from the Church)? As none of you provided any objective references?

So…from what you’ve shared…a Catholic “in the pews” who might be present at a celebration of Baptism may or may not be witnessing/celebrating a Sacrament.

Is that right? The Catholic Church provides for such doubt?

It seems to me that such an understanding of “conditional baptism” means the Catholic Church “goes through the motions” of the sacrament regardless of whether it’s really a Sacrament or not. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Any help?

 

[otjm]

Thanks Karen, otjm, and Matthew. Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I was simply looking for some objective teaching from the Church, but I appreciate your responses anyway. It seems there are none (meaning, no objective clarifications on this issue from the Church)? As none of you provided any objective references?

I have not taken a class in Sacramental Theology; nor, I suspect, has anyone else who has answered. But you might consider this: it is standard operating procedure in both the US and England, and is not something regulated by Vatican 2. It was the practice well prior to that (per information dating back at least to 1907). I don’t doubt someone could drag up something from somewhere.

So…from what you’ve shared…a Catholic “in the pews” who might be present at a celebration of Baptism may or may not be witnessing/celebrating a Sacrament.

only if they are witnessing a conditional baptism, which is rare. Not non-existent, but rare.

Is that right? The Catholic Church provides for such doubt?

the Catholic church provides for the sanctity of one baptism, which it professes every time the Nicene Creed is said (and that creed goes back a long way); further, the church holds that intentionally rebaptizing is a sacrilege.

It seems to me that such an understanding of “conditional baptism” means the Catholic Church “goes through the motions” of the sacrament regardless of whether it’s really a Sacrament or not. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Any help?

well, what would you propose? Someone wants to join the Church; baptism is necessary for salvation, and they think but are not sure they were baptized once, but have no proof whatsoever. What would you propose?

 

[diggerdomer]

I have not taken a class in Sacramental Theology; nor, I suspect, has anyone else who has answered. But you might consider this: it is standard operating procedure in both the US and England, and is not something regulated by Vatican 2. It was the practice well prior to that (per information dating back at least to 1907). I don’t doubt someone could drag up something from somewhere.

Really? A standard practice? Why? Based on the teaching of the Church or something else? I would sincerely appreciate clarification on such standard practice. If it’s in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, then of course that’s wonderful. If it’s not, then I wonder why such would exist?

I

the Catholic church provides for the sanctity of one baptism, which it professes every time the Nicene Creed is said (and that creed goes back a long way); further, the church holds that intentionally rebaptizing is a sacrilege.

Ok, then how do you explain the claim made on this thread that the Catholic Church “conditionally baptizes”? Is it a first baptism? Or…a pseudo-second (illicit? invalid?) baptism? I’m really interested in understanding what people mean by such. Meaning, for those of you suggesting that the Catholic Church “conditionally baptizes” people…how is that not a second baptism?

I
well, what would you propose? Someone wants to join the Church; baptism is necessary for salvation, and they think but are not sure they were baptized once, but have no proof whatsoever. What would you propose?

I would propose, as I believe the Church does, that they be initiated as non-baptized.

 

[diggerdomer]

otjm tried, but here is my attempt.

Since the Church believes there is only one baptism, any time one would attempt to be “baptized” again isn’t really baptism, but simply a person getting wet. It may look like a baptism, but there is no actual change to the person and no grace is received since that has already happened and can only happen once.

So for someone receiving a conditional baptism, if they have already been baptized, they simply get wet in the conditional baptism, no sin would be removed. If they haven’t been baptized, then the conditional baptism would be an actual baptism and would remove all sin. That is why when one is conditionally baptized, it starts with “If you have not been baptized.”

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church “goes through the motions” of the sacrament of baptism, even when She knows such is not required? Or that “going through the motions” is a “catch-all” regardless of whether the sacrament is actually validly celebrated? I’m confused. Thanks for any clarification.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No need. Baptism forgives/removes all sins.

Clearly you do not understand Conditional Baptism.

It is administered because there is a doubt as to whether a person was baptised or if their baptism was valid. Because the fact or validity is not known the outcome of a Conditional Baptism is not known.

If the person was never baptised or they have been baptised invalidly (but remember Conditional Baptism is being administered because one does not know) the Conditional Baptism will baptise the person. This baptism forgives all their sins - original and personal (mortal and venial).

If the person has been validly baptised (but remember Conditional Baptism is being administered because one does not know) the Conditional Baptism will not baptise the person; it will have NO effect because one can only be baptised once, and once only! Their orginal sin will have been forgiven in the original baptism but as the Conditional Baptism, in this case, has no effect personal sins are not forgiven.

Due to the very nature of Conditional Baptism we cannot know its effect so we cannot know if any sins are forgiven, thus if a person has had a Conditional Baptism he/she needs to go to confession to ensure their personal sins are forgiven.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Thanks Karen, otjm, and Matthew. Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I was simply looking for some objective teaching from the Church, but I appreciate your responses anyway. It seems there are none (meaning, no objective clarifications on this issue from the Church)? As none of you provided any objective references?

There are some references at the bottom of this post. Perhaps you should try doing your own research rather than expecting others to do it for you. Conditional baptism is provided by the Church and your lack of knowledge of conditional baptism is a manifestation of your ignorance and is not evidence that it does not exist.

So…from what you’ve shared…a Catholic “in the pews” who might be present at a celebration of Baptism may or may not be witnessing/celebrating a Sacrament.

This statement further demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning conditional baptism. Conditional baptism is administered in private consequently a Catholic “in the pews” would not be present.

Is that right? The Catholic Church provides for such doubt?

The Church does not provide for such doubt; it is dealing pastorally with a situation where a doubt exists.

It seems to me that such an understanding of “conditional baptism” means the Catholic Church “goes through the motions” of the sacrament regardless of whether it’s really a Sacrament or not. That doesn’t seem right to me.

The Church is not going through the motions. It is dealing with pastoral sensitivity in unusual cases. Do you know how many times the sacrament of baptism may be administered to the same person? If a person does not know whether or not they have been baptised what do you suggest that the Church should do for them? If a person has been through some form of ceremony or rite that purports to be a baptism but there is doubt about its validity what do you suggest the Church should do for them?

Any help?

Provision for conditional baptism is provided for in the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris: Can 869. It is also discussed in The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism #99 d).

If you do not believe that the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris provides conditional baptism then please provide irrefutable evidence from current, authentic documents issued by the Church.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If it’s in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, then of course that’s wonderful.

It is a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Ok, then how do you explain the claim made on this thread that the Catholic Church “conditionally baptizes”? Is it a first baptism? Or…a pseudo-second (illicit? invalid?) baptism? I’m really interested in understanding what people mean by such. Meaning, for those of you suggesting that the Catholic Church “conditionally baptizes” people…how is that not a second baptism?

It is a first baptism if the person has never been baptised or has been invalidly baptised. If the person has been previously validly baptised it is nothing, nothing happens. Only God knows the effects of a conditional baptism. God is not restrained by the laws of the Church.

I would propose, as I believe the Church does, that they be initiated as non-baptized.

Your belief is wrong. The Church only baptises the non-baptised in cases of certainty - no former valid baptism. This applies to most cases. Conditional baptism does not happen often.

 

[KarenElissa]

Thanks Karen, otjm, and Matthew. Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I was simply looking for some objective teaching from the Church, but I appreciate your responses anyway. It seems there are none (meaning, no objective clarifications on this issue from the Church)? As none of you provided any objective references?

Matthew provided the links, but here is the quote:

If, even after careful investigation, a serious doubt persists about the proper administration of the baptism and it is judged necessary to baptize conditionally, the Catholic minister should show proper regard for the doctrine that baptism may be conferred only once by explaining to the person involved, both why in this case he is baptizing conditionally and what is the significance of the rite of conditional baptism. Furthermore, the rite of conditional baptism is to be carried out in private and not in public.

So…from what you’ve shared…a Catholic “in the pews” who might be present at a celebration of Baptism may or may not be witnessing/celebrating a Sacrament.

The Catholic “in the pews” shouldn’t generally have any reason to witness a conditional baptism as they are celebrated in private. It should just be the priest, person being baptized and the Godparents.

Conditional baptisms aren’t everyday occurrences, it is a special thing for extreme cases. It is for the person whose mother once told them they were baptized as an infant, but their parents have died and they have no evidence or witness and have no idea in which church. You don’t want to say they were never baptized since they said they were, but since you don’t have any evidence you can’t just let it go either. Or it is for the person who was baptized in a denomination that sometimes uses the correct formula and sometimes doesn’t and the person doesn’t remember and again has no witnesses.

For most people, it is pretty simple. Most denominations use the correct formula and keep records. Or people’s parents are able to provide a statement saying they were baptized. Or they were baptized in a denomination, like mormons, where we are quite certain that their “baptism” was not valid.

 

[puzzleannie]

I see my experience with RCIA can be of no further use here, since we have long since gone off topic to a 2-party debate on conditional baptism.

if anybody cares to come on over to Evangelization and discuss discernment of conversion of adults in the RCIA process that could be an enlightening discussion, which this is not.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I see my experience with RCIA can be of no further use here …

… since we have long [since] gone off topic to a 2-party ?] debate on conditional baptism.

if (sic.) anybody cares to come on over to Evangelization and discuss discernment of conversion of adults in the RCIA process that could be an enlightening discussion, which this is not.

I do not see any relevance to your Post (#36) other than you draw attention to yourself or to unnecessarily criticise other posters. The post has not gone off topic. The OP questioned whether baptism can forgive all sins.

Is the baptism sufficient for repentance for previous sins? Does it depend on the type and severity of sin? Is confession of past sins still needed?

It is quite appropriate that a discussion on the topic of baptism might raise the issue of conditional baptism. One poster on here denies that the Church provides for conditional baptism. Several of us have been making an attempt to demonstrate to this poster that Holy Mother Church does provide for conditional baptism.

It links in quite appropriately with the OP as we cannot know the effects of any particular conditional baptism and hence it needs to be followed up by auricular confession.

This debate is as enlightening as the one to which you want us all to switch.