Non Catholic Baptism

[simspt]

If one is baptized in a Non-Catholic church and the pastor uses the trinitarian formula would it be accepted by a convert to Catholicism? Even if that pastor had a very negative view of Catholicism.

 

[crazzeto]

If one is baptized in a Non-Catholic church and the pastor uses the trinitarian formula would it be accepted by a convert to Catholicism? Even if that pastor had a very negative view of Catholicism.

Yes, unless there was grave and solid evidence to suggest improper intent… Typically there is no such evidence to suggest any such thing though.

 

[Zooey]

Thats how we/I do it. Before we submerge them in water we say I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit. While they are being submerged we say baried with him and raised to a new life.

Now that is using the proper formula.

That’s correct. My husband was raised Southern Baptist, and baptised at about age 7 (or maybe it was 9? I can’t remember). When he joined the Catholic Church 3 years ago he just made a profession of faith and was confirmed (and received the Eucharist, of course!), not rebaptized.

I’ve always been kind of confused about the “intention” part of baptism. I’ve heard it explained as “intending to do what the Church does”. Well, the Church intends to wash away Original Sin and infuse sanctifiying Grace and leave an indelible mark on the person’s soul. Baptists (and most Fundamentalists and other “Believer’s Baptism” folks, I imagine), don’t intend to do that. So I really don’t understand why we (Catholics) consider it valid? Is the assumption that God does that regardless of what they (Baptists, etc.) think is happening? (or not happening, as the the case may be?). Because I know the “intention” part comes in big in situations such as the LDS: They use water and the Trinitarian forumla, but we DON’T recognize their baptisms. What’s the difference?

In Christ,

Ellen

I think that some churches that used to accept LDS baptisms as valid have stopped doing so, because there is a :shrug:real doubt as to whether they intend actual Christian baptism, and I believe that this started with (but did not end with) the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, (and since I actually know someone who left the Mormons to become Methodist), there is also a possibility that at least some LDS were converts to that faith (the man I know is one such), and they would, I presume (??) be accepted as validly baptized in the past. (Not at their Mormon baptism, I mean; as children, perhaps).

 

[IowaJay]

In Scott Hahn’s conversion story “A Protestant minister becomes Catholic”, Scott mentions receiving the “grand slam”, Baptism, Confirmation, Confession and the Eucharist. So does this infer that he was required to get baptized again by the CC?

I don’t know if anyone else has covered this yet, but I believe his book said he was conditionally baptized, i.e., just in case the first one was invalid. Once in awhile I’ll hear of some other non-Catholic churches baptizing in the “name of Jesus” based on a Biblical reference (Acts maybe?) instead of the triune name, so maybe Hahn was concerned that perhaps that had happened to him, but wasn’t sure, hence, the “conditional” nature.

While on the subject of “conditional” sacraments, “conditional” ordination can also be done, for instance, in the case of an Anglican convert priest who provides evidence that he was ordained by someone with valid apostolic succession according to Vatican policy (such as the presence of an Old Catholic Bishop) and the proper form was used. I believe Graham Leonard, RIP, was conditionally ordained.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t know if anyone else has covered this yet, but I believe his book said he was conditionally baptized, i.e., just in case the first one was invalid. Once in awhile I’ll hear of some other non-Catholic churches baptizing in the “name of Jesus” based on a Biblical reference (Acts maybe?) instead of the triune name, so maybe Hahn was concerned that perhaps that had happened to him, but wasn’t sure, hence, the “conditional” nature.

While on the subject of “conditional” sacraments, “conditional” ordination can also be done, for instance, in the case of an Anglican convert priest who provides evidence that he was ordained by someone with valid apostolic succession according to Vatican policy (such as the presence of an Old Catholic Bishop) and the proper form was used. I believe Graham Leonard, RIP, was conditionally ordained.

It could also be that Dr. Hahn was worried about the intent, if the person doing the baptism didn’t beleive in the effacy of the sacrament perhaps. I’m not 100% up on all conditions that are required to make baptism valid, but I know to be valid a sacrament needs

proper:
Form + Intent + Matter

that one in the middle for many denominations may be called into question, at least in this lay believers eyes.