Protestant baptism accepted by RC Church - - why?

[SetonGirl]

Just wondering, when Protestants become Catholic, how can the Church accept their Protestant baptisms (assuming it was in the name of the Trinity) considering the Protestant clergy does not have apostolic succession and the Protestant baptism is symbolic and is not a means of grace?

 

[Gorgias]

considering the Protestant clergy does not have apostolic succession

Baptism doesn’t require an ordained minister for the sake of validity.

and the Protestant baptism is symbolic and is not a means of grace?

All that the Church requires is that the baptizer intends what the Church intends (i.e., to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit). The grace comes from God, not from the baptizer.

 

[Stylites]

There is but one Church. If the proper form (water), Trinitarian words and intent are present then it is a valid baptism. A person does not even need to be a Christian to baptize another, as in the case of imminent death.

Likewise, the Church presumes the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony among baptized non-Catholic couples.

 

[R_C]

Careful, though. My understanding is that Baptism, if valid, is also sacramental, but Matrimony may be considered valid while not sacramental. Which is why there is a process of validation for married couples, but there is no validation for Baptism: either you received it and that’s it, or it was invalid and you need to receive it.

 

[Burdensome1]

Anyone can Baptize.

Simple answer is simple.

 

[JerryZ]

Just wondering, when Protestants become Catholic, how can the Church accept their Protestant baptisms (assuming it was in the name of the Trinity) considering the Protestant clergy does not have apostolic succession and the Protestant baptism is symbolic and is not a means of grace?

Even a lay person can perform a valid baptism if it is done properly with water and invoking the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

As long as the form is proper that is all is required, the baptism comes from God not the priest

 

[drafdog]

Previous posters on this thread have it right. This means, of course, that all main stream Protestants are in fact Catholic. The only difference is in the quality of catechesis received. Incidentally, the correct term for such members is “crypto-Catholic” from the Greek meaning “hidden.”

Reb Levi

 

[Gorgias]

Previous posters on this thread have it right. This means, of course, that all main stream Protestants are in fact Catholic. The only difference is in the quality of catechesis received. Incidentally, the correct term for such members is “crypto-Catholic” from the Greek meaning “hidden.”

Reb Levi

I think it would be more accurate to say (in the words of Lumen gentium) that “in many ways, they are linked to the Church”, and “in some real way, they are joined to us in the Holy Spirit”.

 

[Phemie]

Careful, though. My understanding is that Baptism, if valid, is also sacramental, but Matrimony may be considered valid while not sacramental. Which is why there is a process of validation for married couples, but there is no validation for Baptism: either you received it and that’s it, or it was invalid and you need to receive it.

Just to clarify:
The valid marriage of two baptized non-Catholics is sacramental. It is Baptism that makes a marriage a sacrament, not where it was celebrated.

The valid marriage of two non-baptized persons or of one non-baptized person and one baptized person (even a Catholic) is non-sacramental/natural.

‘Validation’ or, rather, convalidation is not required if they are in a valid marriage even if it’s non-sacramental.

 

[1ke]

Careful, though. My understanding is that Baptism, if valid, is also sacramental, but Matrimony may be considered valid while not sacramental.

Marriage among the unbaptized can be valid, but it is not sacramental because baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments.

Which is why there is a process of validation for married couples, but there is no validation for Baptism: either you received it and that’s it, or it was invalid and you need to receive it.

No, this is not correct.

A natural marriage (one that is valid but not a sacrament due to the unbaptized state of one or both parties) becomes a sacrament automatically when/if both parties become baptized. Such a marriage is not convalidated. It is valid. If neither party is ever baptized, it remains valid but not a sacrament. If one party becomes a baptized Catholic but the other party remains unbaptized, the marriage remains a valid natural marriage. There is no convalidation.

An invalid marriage requires a convalidation. A convalidation is the contracting of a valid marriage. So, just like baptism, you are either married or not. If not, you must get married (convalidate) just as you must get baptized.

 

[1ke]

Previous posters on this thread have it right. This means, of course, that all main stream Protestants are in fact Catholic. The only difference is in the quality of catechesis received. Incidentally, the correct term for such members is “crypto-Catholic” from the Greek meaning “hidden.”

Reb Levi

They are not canonically Catholics.

 

[Evan]

Careful, though. My understanding is that Baptism, if valid, is also sacramental, but Matrimony may be considered valid while not sacramental. Which is why there is a process of validation for married couples, but there is no validation for Baptism: either you received it and that’s it, or it was invalid and you need to receive it.

When the validity of Baptism is in doubt, a conditional Baptism is given. No need to validate, just conditionally Baptize.