Living as an Invalidly Baptized Catholic without ever knowing it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CivisRomanusSum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CivisRomanusSum

Guest
Is it possible to have lived your whole life thinking you were baptized as a Catholic but then your baptism (say, as an infant) was not valid for one reason or another? Given that you have a baptismal certificate proving that you were baptized according to the Catholic rite, do we have any other assurance that our baptisms as infants (which we obviously cannot remember) are valid? The thought suddenly struck me (and scary it was) that some minor lapse on the part of the priest, for example, could have left your infant baptism invalid (like not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula) and that there’s no way for you to know for sure whether you were validly baptized. And the thought that all the subsequent sacraments you received were consequently invalid is scary as well.
 
There would be no reason to question this. The Church would presume validity unless there was some reasonable doubt that could be substantiated, and that likely would be addressed by someone at the time. As you say, you have your certificate; there were witnesses also. No further “proof” is needed; faith and trust is needed, and perhaps the counsel of a priest you respect.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
There would be no reason to question this. The Church would presume validity unless there was some reasonable doubt that could be substantiated, and that likely would be addressed by someone at the time. As you say, you have your certificate; there were witnesses also. No further “proof” is needed; faith and trust is needed, and perhaps the counsel of a priest you respect.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
(snipped)… some minor lapse on the part of the priest…(like not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula .
Click to expand...
In the first place ‘not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula’ would not be a ‘minor lapse’. It would be complete failure to perform a baptism at all.

In the second place, there are witnesses, and this is one reason why there are witnesses.
If the priest had failed to say the formula the witnesses would know this, and report it. The priest would have to do it over, this time correctly, or else another priest would be set to do it instead.

Bear in mind that even a baptism done by a lay person is still valid if the basic formula is followed and the layperson’s intent is to baptize. The minimum required ritual is very simple for a reason.
 
As long as you truly and honestly believe everything happened in accordance with the rites of the church, at the risk of being repetitive, I have never believed God plays gotcha with true believers.
 
Reepicheep said:
In the first place ‘not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula’ would not be a ‘minor lapse’. It would be complete failure to perform a baptism at all.

In the second place, there are witnesses, and this is one reason why there are witnesses.
If the priest had failed to say the formula the witnesses would know this, and report it. The priest would have to do it over, this time correctly, or else another priest would be set to do it instead.

Bear in mind that even a baptism done by a lay person is still valid if the basic formula is followed and the layperson’s intent is to baptize. The minimum required ritual is very simple for a reason.
Click to expand...
and the only groups that I know of who don’t use the Trinitarian formula are the latter day saints and the jehova witnesses.

so unless the priest was secretly one of these, it’s very unlikely that it was done wrong
 
I was baptised in the CofE nearly 60 years ago, and my baptism wasn’t questioned when I entered the Catholic Church in 2014. The vicar who baptised me is long gone to his rest, as are all the adults who were at the baptism. However, it was presumed to be valid and the date was duly entered in the records when I converted.

There’s a reason we can only be baptised once, which makes that sacrament all the more wonderful.
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
Is it possible to have lived your whole life thinking you were baptized as a Catholic but then your baptism (say, as an infant) was not valid for one reason or another? Given that you have a baptismal certificate proving that you were baptized according to the Catholic rite, do we have any other assurance that our baptisms as infants (which we obviously cannot remember) are valid? The thought suddenly struck me (and scary it was) that some minor lapse on the part of the priest, for example, could have left your infant baptism invalid (like not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula) and that there’s no way for you to know for sure whether you were validly baptized. And the thought that all the subsequent sacraments you received were consequently invalid is scary as well.
Click to expand...
Do you have some knowledge of the priest or parish involved in your Baptism that causes you to have such fears? As has been pointed out, a"minor lapse" won’t invalidate the Sacrament - assuming intent, water, and the Trinitarian Formula are present.
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
Is it possible to have lived your whole life thinking you were baptized as a Catholic but then your baptism (say, as an infant) was not valid for one reason or another? Given that you have a baptismal certificate proving that you were baptized according to the Catholic rite, do we have any other assurance that our baptisms as infants (which we obviously cannot remember) are valid? The thought suddenly struck me (and scary it was) that some minor lapse on the part of the priest, for example, could have left your infant baptism invalid (like not pronouncing the Trinitarian formula) and that there’s no way for you to know for sure whether you were validly baptized. And the thought that all the subsequent sacraments you received were consequently invalid is scary as well.
Click to expand...
It’s not like a magic spell where if you say it “wrong”, the person being baptised is baptised. If we believe ourselves baptised and live our whole life in the Church, I do not believe God’s going to say “actually…you weren’t actually baptised…sorry for the mix-up…down you go”.
 
Even if something unbelievable had happened, and the priest neglected the baptism; and none of the adults present noticed, you would still have baptism of desire. This is not something to worry about.
 
  1. If the priest merely pronounces the Trinitarian formula, but it was the deacon who actually pours the water and not the priest, is the baptism still valid? I read somewhere that in this case, the intention of the minister (an essential requisite) would be ambiguous. If the deacon himself pronounced the formula, then he and not the priest would be the minister.
  2. If the water is poured only once but continuously, and not three times as stated in the Catechism, is the baptism still valid? The Code of Canon Law doesn’t seem to mention the number of times the water needs to be poured. And if the Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of other churches (presumably where triple infusion or triple immersion is not done), would such a “single” infusion be valid?
Thanks! 🙂
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
  1. If the priest merely pronounces the Trinitarian formula, but it was the deacon who actually pours the water and not the priest, is the baptism still valid?..
  2. If the water is poured only once but continuously, and not three times as stated in the Catechism, is the baptism still valid? …
Click to expand...
  1. No.
  2. Yes.
Dan
 
angell1 said:
and the only groups that I know of who don’t use the Trinitarian formula are the latter day saints and the jehova witnesses.

so unless the priest was secretly one of these, it’s very unlikely that it was done wrong
Click to expand...
ncregister.com/site/article/baptisms_must_be_redone

Some of this nonsense did hit some Catholic churches during the crazy years, so it is possible there are a few invalidly baptized “Catholics” out there who may not be aware of it.
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
  1. If the priest merely pronounces the Trinitarian formula, but it was the deacon who actually pours the water and not the priest, is the baptism still valid? I read somewhere that in this case, the intention of the minister (an essential requisite) would be ambiguous. If the deacon himself pronounced the formula, then he and not the priest would be the minister.
  2. If the water is poured only once but continuously, and not three times as stated in the Catechism, is the baptism still valid? The Code of Canon Law doesn’t seem to mention the number of times the water needs to be poured. And if the Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of other churches (presumably where triple infusion or triple immersion is not done), would such a “single” infusion be valid?
Thanks! 🙂
Click to expand...
I suspect an expert would say something to the effect that these are quibbles, and would not make the baptism invalid.

ETA I note that Dans0622 gave a different answer, and may be an expert. If so I stand corrected.
 
Reepicheep said:
I suspect an expert would say something to the effect that these are quibbles, and would not make the baptism invalid.

ETA I note that Dans0622 gave a different answer, and may be an expert. If so I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
Hello,

Well, I have books that have lots of answers in them. Some of the answers I remember. Sometimes, things can be reasoned out.

In this case, if a person says “I baptize you…” but he actually doesn’t carry out the baptism (that is, the washing with water), then there is a fatal disconnect between what is said and what is done. So, invalid. That’s the basic rationale behind all the Sacraments (with, perhaps the exception of Confession): the one who says the words has to carry out the corresponding action.

Dan
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
There would be no reason to question this. The Church would presume validity unless there was some reasonable doubt that could be substantiated, and that likely would be addressed by someone at the time. As you say, you have your certificate; there were witnesses also. No further “proof” is needed; faith and trust is needed, and perhaps the counsel of a priest you respect.
Click to expand...
Except, is the baptism made valid by the churche’s acceptance or does it actually have to be done correctly. Since, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 peter 3:1 If the baptism is performed incorrectly by the one priest and the church is unaware of his mistake…?
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
And the thought that all the subsequent sacraments you received were consequently invalid is scary as well.
Click to expand...
So far, there’s two red flags in your question: it’s legalistic and it leads to fear. That strikes me an awful lot like the evil one at work. There’s no greater legalist and fearmonger than he.

God has bound the Sacraments to Himself, but He is not bound to the Sacraments. And He is a loving Father who desires all human beings to be saved. And Christ on the cross shows the extent to which God will go in His great thirst for souls.

You’ve heard all that a thousand million times.

But there’s a difference between hearing and trusting. There’s a difference between hearing all of this business about mercy and actually living in it. And satan loves that difference and he no doubt loves for people to never see it.

And the biggest thing he loves is that, in all of this fear, you’re not thinking about God.
 
Mammoths said:
Except, is the baptism made valid by the churche’s acceptance or does it actually have to be done correctly. Since, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 peter 3:1 If the baptism is performed incorrectly by the one priest and the church is unaware of his mistake…?
Click to expand...
God is not locked into our rules. A person who accepts an invalid baptism on good faith that it is valid will still merit the same grace of God. The priest who willfully invalidates the sacraments on the other hand…
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
  1. If the priest merely pronounces the Trinitarian
    formula, but it was the deacon who actually pours the water and not the priest, is the baptism still valid? I read somewhere that in this case, the intention of the minister (an essential requisite) would be ambiguous. If the deacon himself pronounced the formula, then he and not the priest would be the minister.
Click to expand...
dans0622 said:
  1. No.
    Dan
Click to expand...
  1. A blanket “No” may not be the best answer given that under Canon Law the Deacon is one of the ordinary ministers of the sacrament, I am curious on what you base your answer. It would be interesting to know where CivisRomanusSum actually read/heard this situation.
IMHO, we would have to have a much more detailed explanation of the situation. One can very well imagine a situation where a priest has injured his hand or is too weak to actually pour the water and asks the Deacon to assist. No properly trained Deacon would normally assist the Bishop or Priest in such a situation unless he understood the intent of the Priest celebrant to actually confer the Sacrament of Baptism - AND the Deacon would be acting under the authority and full knowledge of the Priest in such a situation which should satisfy the normal General Rules of the ritual and the prescript of Can. 530.

THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
Can. 861 §1. The **ordinary minister of baptism **is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top