Is my baptism valid?

[Harpazo]

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).

Ah yes, but how do you know that the Anglicans intend to baptize in the manner that Catholics do? As I said earlier, in agreement with bpbasilphx, people should be “conditionally baptized” when entering one of the Apostolic Churches. Protestantism can be incredibly when administering this and they may or may not have the same understanding as your Catholic Church does. Why chance it?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[grandfather]

Ah yes, but how do you know that the Anglicans intend to baptize in the manner that Catholics do? As I said earlier, in agreement with bpbasilphx, people should be “conditionally baptized” when entering one of the Apostolic Churches. Protestantism can be incredibly when administering this and they may or may not have the same understanding as your Catholic Church does. Why chance it?

In Christ,
Andrew

The bishop is the competent authority. The OP is interested in becoming Catholic, not Orthodox.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah yes, but how do you know that the Anglicans intend to baptize in the manner that Catholics do? As I said earlier, in agreement with bpbasilphx, people should be “conditionally baptized” when entering one of the Apostolic Churches. Protestantism can be incredibly when administering this and they may or may not have the same understanding as your Catholic Church does. Why chance it?

In Christ,
Andrew

I think you’re asking some fair questions which need to be answered.

You’re correct in saying that we don’t always know. Yet, the point is that we don’t know ‘at first’ until the bishop investigates and issues his decision–once that’s been done, we do know.

The whole point here is that we don’t “chance it.” The local bishop decides whether or not the (attempted) baptism was valid.

If the bishop investigates, and we’re still not certain, then yes that’s cause for conditional baptism.

Please understand that we neither take it for granted that a baptism was valid and simply accept it; nor do we presume that it was invalid and risk re-baptising when it’s not necessary.

As cameron_lansing posted, this sort of thing is indeed investigated, and it’s done thoroughly.

 

[grandfather]

I think you’re asking some fair questions which need to be answered.

You’re correct in saying that we don’t always know. Yet, the point is that we don’t know ‘at first’ until the bishop investigates and issues his decision–once that’s been done, we do know.

The whole point here is that we don’t “chance it.” The local bishop decides whether or not the (attempted) baptism was valid.

If the bishop investigates, and we’re still not certain, then yes that’s cause for conditional baptism.

Please understand that we neither take it for granted that a baptism was valid and simply accept it; nor do we presume that it was invalid and risk re-baptising when it’s not necessary.

As cameron_lansing posted, this sort of thing is indeed investigated, and it’s done thoroughly.

One of the things that is interessting in these discussions is how quickly those writing in offering to be helpful to a questioner, original poster, lose sight of that person’s situation and get involved in a debate. The young person who posed the question is looking for some reassurance of his or her spiritual standing with the Church.

“Am I baptized, initiated, or not? This is important to me and I really need to know where I stand”.

The young original poster does not need to watch a tennis match as different opinionators go back and forth with their conversation on fine points of sacramental theology or their different opinions. Provide some basics and options.

There are three basic options here. You are validly baptized, so you don’t have to worry. You are not validly baptized, so you need to be, but don’t worry, because…
Or, we can’t answer your question, because it is a matter for more competent authority, but don’t worry, because you can be conditionally baptized, or do whatever the bishop tells you.

Whatever the case, don’t worry, because God knows your intent and heart and …

.

 

[Oumashta]

One of the things that is interessting in these discussions is how quickly those writing in offering to be helpful to a questioner, original poster, lose sight of that person’s situation and get involved in a debate. The young person who posed the question is looking for some reassurance of his or her spiritual standing with the Church.

“Am I baptized, initiated, or not? This is important to me and I really need to know where I stand”.

The young original poster does not need to watch a tennis match as different opinionators go back and forth with their conversation on fine points of sacramental theology or their different opinions. Provide some basics and options.

There are three basic options here. You are validly baptized, so you don’t have to worry. You are not validly baptized, so you need to be, but don’t worry, because…
Or, we can’t answer your question, because it is a matter for more competent authority, but don’t worry, because you can be conditionally baptized, or do whatever the bishop tells you.

Whatever the case, don’t worry, because God knows your intent and heart and …

.

I was just about to say that (the first part) Ok, thank you.

 

[grandfather]

I was just about to say that (the first part) Ok, thank you.

So things will work out how they work out. As the process develops, obey Jesus.

“Let not your hearts be troubled”.

Don’t worry about this.

 

[Harpazo]

I think you’re asking some fair questions which need to be answered.

You’re correct in saying that we don’t always know. Yet, the point is that we don’t know ‘at first’ until the bishop investigates and issues his decision–once that’s been done, we do know.

The whole point here is that we don’t “chance it.” The local bishop decides whether or not the (attempted) baptism was valid.

If the bishop investigates, and we’re still not certain, then yes that’s cause for conditional baptism.

Please understand that we neither take it for granted that a baptism was valid and simply accept it; nor do we presume that it was invalid and risk re-baptising when it’s not necessary.

As cameron_lansing posted, this sort of thing is indeed investigated, and it’s done thoroughly.

Right, I would agree that it’s up to the bishop’s discretion. But the RCC would not call it “re-baptism”, right? Because I’m sure you believe as the Orthodox do, that there is only “one baptism for the remission of sins.” Is this right?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

The bishop is the competent authority. The OP is interested in becoming Catholic, not Orthodox.

This I know. I don’t recall saying the bishop was not the competent authority.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[FrDavid96]

Right, I would agree that it’s up to the bishop’s discretion. But the RCC would not call it “re-baptism”, right? Because I’m sure you believe as the Orthodox do, that there is only “one baptism for the remission of sins.” Is this right?

In Christ,
Andrew

Correct. There’s no such thing as “re-baptism” it was just a shortcut I used (perhaps a bad decision given the context). Although it’s not what I typed, what I means was “an invalid attempt to baptise an already baptised-person”