Is my baptism valid?

[Oumashta]

Even though it could be some time before my mother lets me go to a Catholic church and go through the RCIA, I need to know something. Is my baptism valid? My whole family is pentecostal, some of my relatives are “oneness pentecostal” (they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity). Luckily my mom believes in the Trinity. But anyways, I was baptized like this " I baptize you (Justin) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus. Amen." It it valid if “and in the name of Jesus” is added? I was wondering whether or not I would have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church.

Thanks for all the help!
God bless!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Even though it could be some time before my mother lets me go to a Catholic church and go through the RCIA, I need to know something. Is my baptism valid? My whole family is pentecostal, some of my relatives are “oneness pentecostal” (they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity). Luckily my mom believes in the Trinity. But anyways, I was baptized like this " I baptize you (Justin) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus. Amen." It it valid if “and in the name of Jesus” is added? I was wondering whether or not I would have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church.

Thanks for all the help!
God bless!

As long as the person Baptizing you intended to Baptize you. Said “** I baptize you (name) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” **adding and in the name of Jesus. Amen. makes no difference. as they were pouring the water or dunking you. It’s likely that it’s valid.

 

[kristie_m]

But it does beg the question…if they are baptizing in the name of the Son, and then add,
“and in the name of Jesus” who do they think the Son is?

 

[puzzleannie]

your bishop has probably already looked at various denominations active in your locality, and will know if your branch or pastor is baptizing validly. So the people in charge of preparing you will look into this and consult the bishop if necessary, so you can rest assured your case will be handled properly, even if it is decided you may be conditionally baptized (usually privately, before the Easter Vigil). You just do your best, with your parents’ help, to provide all the facts and documentation you can find.

Welcome Home!

 

[bpbasilphx]

My own personal feeling is that since there is such sloppiness in the administration of Baptism in many Protestant churches–some not saying “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, others merely touching water to the candidate’s forehead with a finger, to give two examples–I’m of the opinion (were someone to step out from behind a bush and ask me) that they should be received by conditional baptism, at least.

Let’s just remove ALL doubt.

This is not to question their walk with Jesus before, but to make sure that baptism was properly done.

 

[AJV]

As long as the person Baptizing you intended to Baptize you. Said “** I baptize you (name) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” **adding and in the name of Jesus. Amen. makes no difference. as they were pouring the water or dunking you. It’s likely that it’s valid.

I think it does make a difference. Why add the name of Jesus if His Person is already mentioned within the Trinity? It could imply theological error. For example, are the Son and Jesus two separate entities? Or is the word “Jesus” meant to be a summation of what was said before, implying the “one-ness” doctrines? Etc. While most theological errors would not invalidate the baptism, errors such as these would invalidate it.

In any case, I suppose the bishop may have made a determination, or the pastor of the church of reception will make one.

 

[teachccd]

I think it does make a difference. Why add the name of Jesus if His Person is already mentioned within the Trinity? It could imply theological error. For example, are the Son and Jesus two separate entities? Or is the word “Jesus” meant to be a summation of what was said before, implying the “one-ness” doctrines? Etc. While most theological errors would not invalidate the baptism, errors such as these would invalidate it.

In any case, I suppose the bishop may have made a determination, or the pastor of the church of reception will make one.

If the proper form and matter were used it would not matter what added thelogical errors appeared. I would assume that since most protestants end all of their prayers in Jesus’ name (as we do, as well) this might be more of a tradition than a true theological error. They just figure that the whole baptiwm was done in Jesus’ name not correlating the two.

Anyway, I do agree that this should be brought to the attention of the priest or bishop for proper discernment…teachccd

 

[AJV]

If the proper form and matter were used it would not matter what added thelogical errors appeared. I would assume that since most protestants end all of their prayers in Jesus’ name (as we do, as well) this might be more of a tradition than a true theological error. They just figure that the whole baptiwm was done in Jesus’ name not correlating the two.

I would disagree with the first part of your statement. Speaking generally, not with refernece to your post, I think there is a tendency in our times to gloss over some of the other details of baptism in favour of stressing (the truth) that matter and form matter, and erroneous beliefs do not invalidate the baptism. Generally, theological errors do not affect the validity of a baptism. But serious ones on the basic nature of the Trinity can - e.g. a conflation of the Persons. This is one of the reasons, for example, why the baptisms of the Mormon’s are invalid. I hadn’t thought of the second part of your post - that is possible. I suppose that will be upto the pastor to determine.

 

[teachccd]

I would disagree with the first part of your statement. Speaking generally, not with refernece to your post, I think there is a tendency in our times to gloss over some of the other details of baptism in favour of stressing (the truth) that matter and form matter, and erroneous beliefs do not invalidate the baptism. Generally, theological errors do not affect the validity of a baptism. But serious ones on the basic nature of the Trinity can - e.g. a conflation of the Persons. This is one of the reasons, for example, why the baptisms of the Mormon’s are invalid. I hadn’t thought of the second part of your post - that is possible. I suppose that will be upto the pastor to determine.

Fair enough. One would need more information to make this determination. Yes, if there is indeed a convoluted idea of the Trinity then the validity of the baptism would be in question. I concur with your post. Thank you for your fervency that we all should exhibit…God bless…teachccd

 

[Harpazo]

My own personal feeling is that since there is such sloppiness in the administration of Baptism in many Protestant churches–some not saying “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, others merely touching water to the candidate’s forehead with a finger, to give two examples–I’m of the opinion (were someone to step out from behind a bush and ask me) that they should be received by conditional baptism, at least.

Let’s just remove ALL doubt.

This is not to question their walk with Jesus before, but to make sure that baptism was properly done.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Catholics re-ordain former Anglican clergy, for much of the same reasons, correct? Some Anglicans do have legitimate orders (although I understand this may be a very small minority) while others do not. Why not remove all doubt?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[StrawberryJam]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Catholics re-ordain former Anglican clergy, for much of the same reasons, correct? Some Anglicans do have legitimate orders (although I understand this may be a very small minority) while others do not. Why not remove all doubt?

In Christ,
Andrew

Hello Andrew,

Not sure you can use the same yardstick for baptism in the same way for holy orders.
Somehow, I see a really big yellowish red light telling me to stop, and think about what you said and question it a bit.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think it does make a difference. Why add the name of Jesus if His Person is already mentioned within the Trinity? It could imply theological error. For example, are the Son and Jesus two separate entities? Or is the word “Jesus” meant to be a summation of what was said before, implying the “one-ness” doctrines? Etc. While most theological errors would not invalidate the baptism, errors such as these would invalidate it.

In any case, I suppose the bishop may have made a determination, or the pastor of the church of reception will make one.

My guess is that they added the extra words because the Scriptures seem to say to Baptize “in the Name of Jesus” and “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. So when confused and don’t have anyone to go to for clarification you do these kind of things.

 

[Oumashta]

I did ask my mom why did they say “In the name of Jesus” when He is already mentioned as “the Son” She said because the Bible says to baptize “In the name of Jesus”.

Anyways, is it valid or not? I need to know this because I need to know whether or not I have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church. But I know it may be at least a few years before my mom lets me become Catholic. Or I wait till I’m 18 and move.

 

[FrDavid96]

I did ask my mom why did they say “In the name of Jesus” when He is already mentioned as “the Son” She said because the Bible says to baptize “In the name of Jesus”.

Anyways, is it valid or not? I need to know this because I need to know whether or not I have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church. But I know it may be at least a few years before my mom lets me become Catholic. Or I wait till I’m 18 and move.

The bottom line is that this determination must be made by the bishop of your diocese. The good folks here can give you some information as to what criteria the bishop will use, but in your particular case, the answer is not so obvious that anyone here can give you a definite answer. For example, if you had said that you were baptised in the name of the creator, redeemer and sanctifier, we could say that it’s not valid. In your case, this comes under the heading of “questionable baptism” and that has to be referred to the bishop, unless he has already dealt with identical situations, made a decision, and notified the pastors one way or the other.

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Catholics re-ordain former Anglican clergy, for much of the same reasons, correct? Some Anglicans do have legitimate orders (although I understand this may be a very small minority) while others do not. Why not remove all doubt?

In Christ,
Andrew

Catholics don’t “re-ordain” Anglican clergy. A Catholic bishop ordains him. There is no “re-” because there was no ordination to repeat.

There are other differences between baptism and ordination. The biggest issue with Anglican “ordinations” is not the words used in the ceremony (as is the case with baptism in this thread, although there may be some issues with the words, I don’t know), but the fact that the Anglican “bishop” is not a validly-ordained bishop to begin with, and therefore can’t ordain anyone to anything. On the other hand, one need not be a bishop in order to baptise (of course, you know this, I’m just illustrating the point).

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The bottom line is that this determination must be made by the bishop of your diocese. The good folks here can give you some information as to what criteria the bishop will use, but in your particular case, the answer is not so obvious that anyone here can give you a definite answer. For example, if you had said that you were baptised in the name of the creator, redeemer and sanctifier, we could say that it’s not valid. In your case, this comes under the heading of “questionable baptism” and that has to be referred to the bishop, unless he has already dealt with identical situations, made a decision, and notified the pastors one way or the other.

Even though you may not be able to seek full union with the Catholic Church right now. You can stop by your local parish and ask to see the pastor, and ask him this question and find out if this has ever come up before. He may be able to answer your concern.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I did ask my mom why did they say “In the name of Jesus” when He is already mentioned as “the Son” She said because the Bible says to baptize “In the name of Jesus”.

Anyways, is it valid or not? I need to know this because I need to know whether or not I have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church. But I know it may be at least a few years before my mom lets me become Catholic. Or I wait till I’m 18 and move.

As someone who is involved in these kinds of determinations at work, I would strongly reiterate the wise and accurate counsel you have received from others. They can be very complex even when they seem to be simple, and we examine them from a variety of comprehensive perspectives. Given the multiplicity of non Catholic demonations ranging from store front churches with self appointed ministers to clearly trinitarian ecclesial communities in which the ministers of baptism take liberties with form, theology and intent, it pays to be careful.

 

[peary]

Even though it could be some time before my mother lets me go to a Catholic church and go through the RCIA, I need to know something. Is my baptism valid? My whole family is pentecostal, some of my relatives are “oneness pentecostal” (they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity). Luckily my mom believes in the Trinity. But anyways, I was baptized like this " I baptize you (Justin) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus. Amen." It it valid if “and in the name of Jesus” is added? I was wondering whether or not I would have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church.

Thanks for all the help!
God bless!

It would probably be valid. In order for a baptism to be valid, one must use the Trinitarian Formula as specified in Scripture: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” - just as Christ instructed.

What is strange is that after you were baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” the addition was added “and in the name of Jesus” when His name was already invoked. But it doesn’t make it any less or invalid.

 

[thomasstuart]

Hi I am Thomas.
yes, As long as the person Baptizing you intended to Baptize you. Said " I baptize you (name) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" adding and in the name of Jesus. Amen. makes no difference. as they were pouring the water or dunking you. It’s likely that it’s valid.
Have a nice day.

 

[grandfather]

Even though it could be some time before my mother lets me go to a Catholic church and go through the RCIA, I need to know something. Is my baptism valid? My whole family is pentecostal, some of my relatives are “oneness pentecostal” (they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity). Luckily my mom believes in the Trinity. But anyways, I was baptized like this " I baptize you (Justin) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus. Amen." It it valid if “and in the name of Jesus” is added? I was wondering whether or not I would have to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church.

Thanks for all the help!
God bless!

Maybe the advice you are getting is more confusing than helpful.

There are three conditions for a sacrament to be valid, maybe four.

There has to be proper form, matter and intent.

In the case of baptism, the matter is water.

The form is the wording that was used. I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Spirit). I don’t think the add-on would invalidate a baptism, but the local bishop would be the authority, not me, or the other folks trying to be helpful here.

The intent or intention is simply to do what the Church does. In this case the intent is to baptize.

A potential fourth condition is consent, which probably overlaps intent, and might not always be necessary. For example when people marry they have to freely without coercion willingly marry. You do this of your free will and no one can force you or coerce you to do it. In the case of baptism of an adult or teenager, someone of the age of reason, if someone was paying you to be baptized, or threatnening you unless you were baptized, that would invalidate the sacrament.

Someone said that you could probably find outr from your local diocese, bishop, maybe by going online or calling, if your denomination’s baptism is considered valid. Otherwise you have to wait until you are older.

There is also something known as baptism of intent. This came about when there were people waiting to be baptized, but were martyred for the faith. Their intent was to be baptized.