Protestant Baptism

[HailHolyQueen90]

Has Protestant baptism always been valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church or did this change with Vatican II?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Baptisms performed by anyone using water and with the Trinitarian formula have always been valid.

However, that does not mean that all non-Catholic Christian “baptisms” are valid. For example, it was decided sometime in the Nineties that Mormon baptisms are invalid.

 

[HailHolyQueen90]

Thank you!

 

[anp1215]

Baptisms performed by anyone using water and with the Trinitarian formula have always been valid.

However, that does not mean that all non-Catholic Christian “baptisms” are valid. For example, it was decided sometime in the Nineties that Mormon baptisms are invalid.

That confuses me. If it was decided in the nineties, does that mean that Mormon converts who were received into the Church prior to that were not baptized, rendering their other Sacraments invalid?

 

[YoungTradCath]

That confuses me. If it was decided in the nineties, does that mean that Mormon converts who were received into the Church prior to that were not baptized, rendering their other Sacraments invalid?

I do not know. Presumably, I guess.

 

[josen]

My posts only deal with the Latin Rite, in one or both of its Forms, unless I specifically state otherwise.http://www.interbankforex.info/g.gif

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I do not know. Presumably, I guess.

No, I don’t think so.

In the 1990s this was stated generally, but it’s always been seen case by case. Mormon baptism would never have been valid according to the standards of the early Church.

BTW there is a lot of precedent for this, since there have been heretics since way before the Reformation. And the Church has always decided that heretic baptisms done with valid intent/matter/form are valid … such as Arian baptisms.

 

[Bran_Stark]

No, I don’t think so.

In the 1990s this was stated generally, but it’s always been seen case by case. Mormon baptism would never have been valid according to the standards of the early Church.

BTW there is a lot of precedent for this, since there have been heretics since way before the Reformation. And the Church has always decided that heretic baptisms done with valid intent/matter/form are valid … such as Arian baptisms.

I don’t understanding the reasoning behind this… aren’t Arianism and Mormonism fairly equally warped departures from orthodox Trinitarianism? Why is one valid but not the other?

 

[corsair]

It is my understanding that any Trinitarian form is valid. Morman baptism/christening is not valid and never has been.

 

[Bran_Stark]

It is my understanding that any Trinitarian form is valid. Morman baptism/christening is not valid and never has been.

Well that clearly isn’t true, since Mormons use identical words as Catholics. Apparently while Mormons have “valid form” and “valid matter”, they lack “valid intention” from a Catholic perspective.

On another note, I recently attended a baptism at the Protestant chapel at my college, and the chaplain used a rather odd formula. I don’t remember exactly how it went, but I think he said something like “I baptize you in the name of the Father who created you, Jesus Christ who redeemed you, and the Holy Spirit”. Would I be correct in saying that this is void in the eyes of Rome? I know she declared invalid the “Creator, Redeemer, & Sanctifier” formula, but this baptism was close enough to the traditional wording that I’m not totally sure.