Illicit baptisms: how common are they?

[babochka]

I hope it didn’t come across as saying that Protestant Baptisms are invalid, just that they are illicit. They are valid, provided that the correct formula and substance are used and it is not a “self-baptism”.

The nature of a sacrament being considered licit, depends on the approval and sanction of the Church. Protestant Baptisms, unless they occur in emergency/end of life happen without the approval of the Church.

I’m pretty sure that trinitarian Protestant baptisms are both valid and licit. Canon law only applies to Catholics. A Catholic lay person can only licitly baptize in the case of emergency because the law applies to that person. This is not so for the Protestant minister.

Therefore, a Protestant minister, the great majority of whom are not validly ordained, do not have the authority to preform licit Baptisms. However, their Baptisms are valid.

I say the majority, because some Protestant denominations still have valid Apostolic Succession and valid Ordination.

Which Protestant denominations have valid Apostolic Succession and Ordination? (Orthodox are not Protestant.)

I am unclear, because of the recent conversations, if the SSPX and such organizations still have licit Baptism (I believe they can give licit absolution…but I could be wrong). I am also unclear with regard to the Orthodox Church. Both organizations like the SSPX and the Orthodox have valid priesthood…but what about licit sacraments like Baptism and Confession. Of course, their Eucharist is valid, but illicit.

All Orthodox sacraments are both valid and licit because they are done under the authority of their own bishops and in compliance with their own laws. Again, Catholic canon law does not apply to the Orthodox or any non-Catholics.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

IIf the millennial parents are neglecting to or being refused baptism for their children, I can see some baby boomer grandparents doing this.

So the baby boomer grandparents raised their millennial children in a way that left the millennials rejecting the Church.

And now the boomers think they have the right to do the same for their grandchildren???

 

[CatholicsRock1]

I’m pretty sure that trinitarian Protestant baptisms are both valid and licit. Canon law only applies to Catholics. A Catholic lay person can only licitly baptize in the case of emergency because the law applies to that person. This is not so for the Protestant minister.

Canon Law is the only rubric by which something can be considered licit. Because the Baptisms happen outside the norms set forth by Canon Law, are by their very definition illicit. Anything that happens outside the norm set out in Canon Law is illicit…whether that be by Catholics or Protestants.

For example, I can say that the Early Anglican Masses would have indeed been valid, but illicit. Also, per Canon Law, I can say that the current “masses” offered by the Anglican Communion are completely invalid and illicit. Regardless of the fact that they may not believe in Canon Law, the law is still applied to them.

You can say that Canon Law applies only to Catholics (though I’ve never heard that before), but if this is indeed true (which it’s not), that would mean that everything that a protestant does is illicit anyway. Since it is outside of Canon Law, it is by its very definition illicit.

Which Protestant denominations have valid Apostolic Succession and Ordination? (Orthodox are not Protestant.)

By the strictest definition of Protestantism (outside of FULL communion with Rome), the Orthodox are indeed quasi-Protestant. They are in Schism with the Church of Rome…or we are in schism with them…depending on who you talk to. Though the schism took place long before the formal Protestant Reformation, they formally left and remain outside of full communion with Rome.

By the same logic, the SSPX (and the like) are by (at least this) definition, Protestant.

This is a completely separate debate, that provides no real substance to this particular thread. It’s also encouraging to see talks about such matters taking place between Rome and the Orthodox/SSPX/SSPV/Conservative Anglicans, so all of this could very well change in the coming years.

All Orthodox sacraments are both valid and licit because they are done under the authority of their own bishops and in compliance with their own laws. Again, Catholic canon law does not apply to the Orthodox or any non-Catholics.

You say that Orthodox sacraments are licit…even though they have no recourse to Canon Law…which is the only way we can examine if a sacrament is licit. I have said, and will say, that the sacraments preformed by the Orthodox are indeed valid, by virtue of their valid priestly office. However, they lack canonical authority to preform these sacraments…as do their bishops.

It is one thing to be able to validly celebrate a sacrament, it is another to have the faculty to do so. Both must be present in order for a sacrament to be licit.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So the baby boomer grandparents raised their millennial children in a way that left the millennials rejecting the Church.

And now the boomers think they have the right to do the same for their grandchildren???

This has always been my criticism as well. Grandparents, who have children living in danger of losing salvation pick the hill of baptism of grandchildren to die on.

 

[Phemie]

It is one thing to be able to validly celebrate a sacrament, it is another to have the faculty to do so. Both must be present in order for a sacrament to be licit.

The Church will tell you that the 2 Codes of Canon Law (Latin & Eastern) apply only to Catholics. Since the rules only apply to Catholics the Protestant ecclesial communities are free to make their own rules (i.e. Baptists don’t celebrate infant Baptism).

If Canon Law applied outside the Church then all marriages would be invalid except those of Catholics married in the Church or dispensed from the obligation to marry in the Church and we know that that is not so.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Illicit Baptisms among Catholics are quite common, unfortunately. It was a trend that grandparents would baptize an infant in the kitchen sink, when the parents said they would not raise the children in any sort of faith life (Catholic or otherwise).

Though these individuals were well intentioned, the Church frowns upon such action (as others have said in this thread).

Also, on a practical note, I would say that the majority of Protestant Baptisms are valid, but not licit, because they themselves (by virtue of being Protestant) do not follow the norms of the Church. When someone converts, they are not re-baptized, because the Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament.

So, answering your question, many baptisms are valid but illicit.

I think another cool topic to explore is the validity of sacraments…especially in the 70s-80s, when priests began to wrongfully “experiment” with the liturgy, changing many of the formulas and substances used in certain sacraments (making up their own expressions of the Trinity, changing Eucharistic prayers including the words of consecration, etc.). Quite sad, thank goodness that time is on its way out!

Please tell us where you are getting this information from concerning Protestant Baptisms. Are you a priest or canon lawyer? You do realize, don’t you, that Protestants are not bound by Catholic Canon Law, as has been stated many times here by priests here on CAF? That is why non-Catholic marriages are licit–they are not bound by our Canon Law. Something cannot be illicit if they are not bound by the law. This confusion needs cleared up so others are not misinformed.

 

[CatholicsRock1]

The Church will tell you that the 2 Codes of Canon Law (Latin & Eastern) apply only to Catholics. Since the rules only apply to Catholics the Protestant ecclesial communities are free to make their own rules (i.e. Baptists don’t celebrate infant Baptism).

I am quite aware of what the Church teaches us, in her infinite wisdom, about Canon Law and its implications. With regard to the licit nature of a sacrament, it has to be examined through the eyes of Canon Law, since this is the only tool that we have at our disposal for this purpose.

Protestant communities can, in fact, make their own rules…but sometimes those rules have effects on the licit nature of sacraments and even the valid nature of their celebration.

For example, you would not consider a Lutheran minister to be validly nor licitly ordained. A Catholic Bishop cannot validly nor licitly ordain a woman. However, a bishop within the SSPX can validly consecrate a bishop, but not licitly.

If Canon Law applied outside the Church then all marriages would be invalid except those of Catholics married in the Church or dispensed from the obligation to marry in the Church and we know that that is not so.

The minister for the Sacrament of Marriage is the couple, Canon Law actually provides such circumstances in which two Catholics can marry in the absence of the Church’s minister (though in the modern age, the circumstances rarely apply). So, marriage can both be valid and licit without the Church’s involvement (provided that both parties are non-Catholic…not non-practicing…). In this instance, the priest or deacon acts only as a witness and blesses the union…the priest does not confer the sacrament.

But there’s quite a difference between Baptism and Marriage…both have their own sets of laws and circumstances.

 

[CatholicsRock1]

Please tell us where you are getting this information from concerning Protestant Baptisms. Are you a priest or canon lawyer? You do realize, don’t you, that Protestants are not bound by Catholic Canon Law, as has been stated many times here by priests here on CAF? That is why non-Catholic marriages are licit–they are not bound by our Canon Law. Something cannot be illicit if they are not bound by the law. This confusion needs cleared up so others are not misinformed.

I am not a priest, but will soon be! Pray for this, Lord knows I need all the prayers I can get. I have studied what many currently ordained priests have studied (perhaps more in some cases) with regards to Canon Law.

Protestants are bound by Canon Law with regards to the validity and licit nature of sacraments. That’s how we can say most Protestant sacraments are invalid.

But even deeper, we can examine the licit nature of such action, which in most cases is non-existent.

Both validity, but most importantly, the licit nature of the sacrament are issues of Canon Law. I would point you to Canon 868 (which deals with the licit baptism of an infant, primary look at §1) and Canon 869.

The fact that priests, perhaps even Canon Lawyers (whom I have a great admiration for), dispute this fact is simply politics. Canon Law has found itself debated on subjects such as this. It is my opinion that Canon Law indicates that protestant baptism is, in fact valid (provided they invoke the Trinitarian Formula and water is used), it is not, however, licit.

 

[babochka]

The minister for the Sacrament of Marriage is the couple, Canon Law actually provides such circumstances in which two Catholics can marry in the absence of the Church’s minister (though in the modern age, the circumstances rarely apply). So, marriage can both be valid and licit without the Church’s involvement (provided that both parties are non-Catholic…not non-practicing…). In this instance, the priest or deacon acts only as a witness and blesses the union…the priest does not confer the sacrament.
.

In the west, yes. But in the east, both Catholic and Orthodox, the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the priest. For this reason, a deacon may not perform a marriage involving an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

 

[CatholicsRock1]

In the west, yes. But in the east, both Catholic and Orthodox, the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the priest. For this reason, a deacon may not perform a marriage involving an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

With regard to this particular matter I would point you to The Pastoral Statement On Orthodox/Roman Catholic Marriages put out by the USCCB it’s quite beautiful (as is Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and addresses this very topic:

In the teaching of our churches, a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God’s blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church. At the present time, there are differences in the ways by which this ministry is exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our churches. The Orthodox Church, as a rule, accepts as sacramental only those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are sanctified in the Church’s liturgy through the blessing of an Orthodox bishop or priest. The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are witnessed by a Catholic bishop or priest (or, in more recent discipline, a deacon), but it also envisages some exceptional cases in which, whether by law or by dispensation, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of a bishop, priest or deacon. There are also differences in our theological explanations of this diversity. As older presentations of sacramental theology indicate, Orthodox theologians often have insisted that the priest is the proper “minister of the Sacrament”, whereas Roman Catholic theologians more often have spoken of the couple as “ministering the sacrament to each other”.

We do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of these differences in practice and theological explanation. We consider their further study to be desirable. At the same time, we wish to emphasize our fundamental agreement. Both our churches have always agreed that ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement, history has shown various possibilities of realization so that no one particular form of expressing this ecclesial context may be considered absolutely normative in all circumstances for both churches. In our judgment, our present differences of practice and theology concerning the required ecclesial context for marriage pertain to the level of secondary theological reflection rather than to the level of dogma.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

 

[Phemie]

The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are witnessed by a Catholic bishop or priest (or, in more recent discipline, a deacon), but it also envisages some exceptional cases in which, whether by law or by dispensation, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

The Catholic Church also accepts as sacramental the valid marriage of those non-Catholic Christians who are validly baptized no matter who witnesses their marriage. So two baptized Baptists or Anglicans without impediment who marry at city hall are just as sacramentally married as two Catholics who marry in the Church.

 

[CatholicsRock1]

The Catholic Church also accepts as sacramental the valid marriage of those non-Catholic Christians who are validly baptized no matter who witnesses their marriage. So two baptized Baptists or Anglicans without impediment who marry at city hall are just as sacramentally married as two Catholics who marry in the Church.

This is only the case with matrimony. There are laws and norms governing and differentiating each sacrament, establishing each in validity and licit nature.

If this is directed as a response to my reply, I’m afraid I’m missing your point. I never stated anything to the contrary.

 

[babochka]

We do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of these differences in practice and theological explanation. We consider their further study to be desirable. At the same time, we wish to emphasize our fundamental agreement. Both our churches have always agreed that ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement, history has shown various possibilities of realization so that no one particular form of expressing this ecclesial context may be considered absolutely normative in all circumstances for both churches. In our judgment, our present differences of practice and theology concerning the required ecclesial context for marriage pertain to the level of secondary theological reflection rather than to the level of dogma.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

I am familiar with the document and would like to point out the bolded part above.

The Orthodox do not fall under the jurisdiction of the local Catholic bishop. They are under the jurisdiction of their own bishop and this is fully recognized by the Catholic Church. This is evidenced by the fact that the Catholic Church does not place a barrier to them receiving the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, but urges them to be obedient to their own priest or bishop.in the matter. (Church recognizes the authority of the Orthodox priest and bishop.) Likewise, Orthodox priests have valid absolution because they have faculties supplied by their own bishop.An Orthodox Christian coming into the Catholic Church is not required to make a general confession, but only since their last confession. Why? Because the Church recognizes the authority and jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishop over Orthodox Christians.This differentiates them from the SSPX, who prior to Pope Francis extending faculties for Confession in the Year of Mercy, did not have them because they were not united to their own legitimate bishop. You simply cannot lump the Orthodox in with “Protestants” because the Church certainly does not.

 

[CatholicsRock1]

I am familiar with the document and would like to point out the bolded part above.

The Orthodox do not fall under the jurisdiction of the local Catholic bishop. They are under the jurisdiction of their own bishop and this is fully recognized by the Catholic Church. This is evidenced by the fact that the Catholic Church does not place a barrier to them receiving the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, but urges them to be obedient to their own priest or bishop.in the matter. (Church recognizes the authority of the Orthodox priest and bishop.) Likewise, Orthodox priests have valid absolution because they have faculties supplied by their own bishop.An Orthodox Christian coming into the Catholic Church is not required to make a general confession, but only since their last confession. Why? Because the Church recognizes the authority and jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishop over Orthodox Christians.This differentiates them from the SSPX, who prior to Pope Francis extending faculties for Confession in the Year of Mercy, did not have them because they were not united to their own legitimate bishop. You simply cannot lump the Orthodox in with “Protestants” because the Church certainly does not.

What you say points out the *validity *of the Orthodox sacraments, something that has never been up for debate. I have always agreed to this. I was merely stating that though the sacraments are in deed valid, they remain illicit, because of their (the Orthodox Church) placement outside of full communion with Rome (meaning they remain separated from Eastern Catholics as well).

The Eastern Catholics ultimately answer to Pope Francis, while being able relatively govern themselves (provided that what they do does not endanger their status with Rome) by the appointment of their own hierarchy (which ultimately is finalized by Rome, since no bishop is licitly consecrated without Papal Mandate…even in the East).

I think there is a slight confusion here, there is a staunch difference between licit and valid. A sacrament can most certainly be illicit, while still being valid.

The beautiful Ordination Rite in the Orthodox Church, is valid, complete with Apostolic Succession and valid priestly office. This beautiful valid sacrament provides for the valid celebration of other sacraments. However, validity does not *necessarily *mean licit.

I cannot, as a Roman Catholic, receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox Church (unless in serious circumstance). I have actually never heard that Orthodox Christians (different from Eastern Catholics, who most certainly can) could receive Communion on a normal circumstance, because of Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)…which states that non-Catholics should not receive Communion unless there within grave circumstance.

Episcopalians are allowed by their laws to receive Communion at a Catholic Church, however, Canon Law says no…because of their place outside of Full Communion with Rome.

Furthermore, on the issue of faculties. Only licitly ordained bishops have the authority to give faculties, because the authority to licitly celebrate the sacraments can only come from Rome (or an extension of Rome’s power, i.e. the local ordinary). If someone is outside of full communion with Rome, like the Orthodox, faculties are not granted, meaning the sacraments that may be celebrated are indeed valid, however, they remain illicit, because they lack proper faculty from Rome.

As an Eastern Catholic, yourself, (I believe, according to your profile) we have a beautiful fellowship. Your Church is the same as mine. The Byzantine Church had to be welcomed into Full Communion with Rome before their sacraments could be considered licit. They were, however, always valid. This is why, today, I am able to go down the road and actively participate and receive the Eucharist during the beautiful Divine Liturgy.

Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, the Orthodox Christian Churches remain outside of Full Communion with Rome, which is necessary for the licit celebration of the sacraments. Again, this is very different from the validity of the action. The Orthodox certainly have valid sacraments, however, they remain (at this time) illicit.

For now, though, let’s end this discussion on the Orthodox, because it has spiraled into something completely different than what the OP intended. I’ll even let you have the last word, if you’d like. I would, however, like to read any source material you may have for the opinions you state. In everything I have studied, I have yet to find a legal reason (put out by Rome) that concurs with your statements. If I am wrong, thanks be to God! I would like, however, to read your source documents, so that I can better understand your position.

Peace