Official list of valid baptisms

[LilyM]

Jared - was your SDA baptism done, as Canon law (and scripture) says must be for it to be valid, with the words ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ and with immersion or pouring of water on you at the same time the words were said?

I don’t know about both SDA and JW believing Jesus to be St Michael the Archangel - is this true?

 

[JaredR]

Jared - was your SDA baptism done, as Canon law (and scripture) says must be for it to be valid, with the words ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ and with immersion or pouring of water on you at the same time the words were said?

I don’t remember, to be honest. It was 5 years ago. I remember it was “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” but I don’t remember if it was said before, after, or what.

I don’t know about both SDA and JW believing Jesus to be St Michael the Archangel - is this true?

Yes, though Adventists don’t believe that Jesus was an angel in the literal sense. I believe there are some differences between the SDA and JW teachings on that subject.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t remember, to be honest. It was 5 years ago. I remember it was “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” but I don’t remember if it was said before, after, or what.

Well right there, if you’re not sure what the form was that was used, there may be some cause for concern. In case you haven’t noticed, the Church likes to have formalities squared away.

Yes, though Adventists don’t believe that Jesus was an angel in the literal sense. I believe there are some differences between the SDA and JW teachings on that subject.

That belief might be sufficient cause for concern.

You may have been baptised in the name of ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, but if SDAs and JWs have such a very different understanding of the nature and identity of that Father, Son or Holy Spirit from that of mainstream Christians, then it murkies the waters a lot.

In any event, try to take a positive view of this.

Most married couples would tell you that a renewal of their wedding vows (which many couples do on their silver or golden anniversaries or what have you) in no way diminishes the importance of their initial wedding ceremony.

Think of a conditional baptism, should one be requested, in a similar way. Think of it as a renewal of that commitment you made to Christ in your initial baptism ceremony - with the addition of a commitment to His Catholic Church as well.

 

[Zooey]

there are some denominations, SDA is one at least here, some branches of Baptist are another, who do not follow a uniform policy regarding baptism. Either they don’t adhere to the directives of their own body, they do not accept all the beliefs about baptism propounded by their own body, or they are splinter groups or pastors who have their own views and conduct baptism according to them. For that reason, even though SDA baptism is listed as “generally believed to be valid” we are further instructed to examine each and every such baptism and ascertain the facts. If you were old enough to remember, or have witnessed who can attest to what happened that will help, but the diocese will also have knowledge since they have investigated how a given denomination or even a given pastor in your locale actually does practice.

For that reason your director is right to go with the information provided by the diocese, but that does not let her off the hook with regard to investigating your situation. In a case such as that OP describes most likely he would be baptized conditionally, unless the facts surrounding his baptism can be proven.

Even if that becomes necessary, it is no reflection on OP, simple a quirk of human nature, that someone or something he thought he could trust turned out to be not what he expected. None of that would be his fault, there would be no whisper of blame on him, the experience of being shaken up by the situation is part and parcel of the process, and I hope his director helps him with those feelings.

What Annie said. (Yes, I am a Methodist, but I do recognize that there is a big difference in what various individual pastors do, in any denomination…and baptism is too important not to be careful about it).
I remember only too well, being present in a relative’s Baptist church when her sons (teens) were baptized, and being appalled at the fact that the (very devout & seemingly learned) pastor used a form of baptism that was not ojnly not Trinitarian, but which seemed to imply that baptism was a “form of humiliation” designed to test the depths of one’s commitment to Christ…and ther I sat, wondering if those two fine young men had actually been baptized at all. (I am inclined to think not)…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So what’s the policy then? When in doubt baptize? Wouldn’t it be better just to be on the safe side?

When invalid with certaintity, the person would be a Catechumen, to be Baptized at the Easter Vigil.

When there is uncertaintity but serious doubt, the person should be Conditionally Baptized ASAP, not at a public ceremony, then treated as a Candidate for the RCIA process.

Where the is certaintity and no doubt, the person is a Candidate for full communion. should participate in a shorter RCIA like process, and received into the Church at a time other than the Easter Vigil.