Protestant friends upset/offended by conditional baptism?

[Seraphim73]

So I should tell them to not have any interest in or curiosity about Catholicism unless they have only positive thoughts instead? Or to never mention that they disagree - and strenuously - with the Catholic church even though we frequently argue theology? Or should the faithful of the Church never question their priests or wonder why things are or if they need to be done a certain way?

Right but for most Christians - especially the people asking who are not baptist - you do not redo the rite. Redoing the rite without grave need would be a serious problem, and shouldn’t be undertaken for them unless there was real doubt about the person’s baptism. And in their (and my) view there shouldn’t have been doubt about mine.

And again, the major problem is that the way it was explained to me there were no real epistemic doubts about my baptism, but the register required that there be a specific date and since nothing I had came dated it had to be redone. That seems odd to me.

Ok we get it. You’ve decided you and your friends know better than the Catholic Church. That’s fine I suppose. But now you are arguing just to argue. The reason the conditional baptism was done has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. If you can’t accept it well that’s your problem.

 

[1ke]

and should be telling your friends this is the way its done in case no paper work can be found

This is NOT accurate. A baptismal certificate is NOT a requirement. An affidavit of baptism suffices.

I had to have the full thing having been Jewish, and that was that.

Because you were not baptized.

The OP was baptized. The OP was baptized as an adult and could attest to the baptism. Therefore, an affidavit of baptism SHOULD have sufficed.

I don’t know what happened in the OP’s case, but the norms of the Church are clear.

 

[1ke]

Matter of fact they were curious about what I went through, and a lot of them find the idea that the church will take paperwork but won’t take someone’s word for it pretty offensive - especially given that the reason I was told was basically “well your evidence is good but we have to have a specific date to record in the register.”

Well, now you can go back to them and reassure them that the Church does in fact take people’s word for it through an affidavit of baptism when the investigation yields a moral certainty of the baptism having occurred and it being Trinitarian.

A mistake may have been made in your specific case.

 

[1ke]

Ok we get it. You’ve decided you and your friends know better than the Catholic Church. That’s fine I suppose. But now you are arguing just to argue. The reason the conditional baptism was done has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. If you can’t accept it well that’s your problem.

Based on what the OP has stated, the norms of the Church regarding conditional baptism were NOT properly applied in this case.

We cannot say for sure, not knowing all the details, but on the face of the situation it’s pretty clear that the OP should have been able to provide an affidavit of baptism. If there was something specific that gave the pastor doubt, he should have communicated it. Lack of a baptismal certificate alone is NOT sufficient for a conditional baptism, particularly when the candidate was baptized as an adult and can attest to their own baptism.

I think it quite sad that all the Catholics on this thread are basically telling the OP that they are wrong, when in fact they are right.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

We cannot say for sure, not knowing all the details, but on the face of the situation it’s pretty clear that the OP should have been able to provide an affidavit of baptism.

To this point the individual has not indicated a third party that was willing to attest to the baptism.

You can’t self affirm your baptism.

.

 

[1ke]

To this point the individual has not indicated a third party that was willing to attest to the baptism.

It doesn’t sound as if she was given the opportunity to do so in the “no certificate, no baptism” scenario.

You can’t self affirm your baptism.

Yes, you can.

Can. 876 To prove the conferral of baptism, if prejudicial to no one, the declaration of one witness beyond all exception is sufficient or** the oath of the one baptized if the person received baptism as an adult.**

 

[DarkLight]

I think a lot of people here are confusing “what the church teaches” with “what an individual priest says.” And that’s part of the issue here. I understand - as do the people objecting - the idea of a conditional baptism. In fact many of them would do the same in a case, perhaps, of a child’s baptism that was not recorded. After all they themselves would not admit an unbaptized person to the communion table.

What’s strange about my case is it seems there was good evidence of a prior baptism. But what I was told was that I needed some sort of paper documentation, or at the very least I needed some sort of documentation that had an exact date on it. I unfortunately don’t have a specific date, just a year and a season.

 

[sousley]

I think a lot of people here are confusing “what the church teaches” with “what an individual priest says.” And that’s part of the issue here. I understand - as do the people objecting - the idea of a conditional baptism. In fact many of them would do the same in a case, perhaps, of a child’s baptism that was not recorded. After all they themselves would not admit an unbaptized person to the communion table.

What’s strange about my case is it seems there was good evidence of a prior baptism. But what I was told was that I needed some sort of paper documentation, or at the very least I needed some sort of documentation that had an exact date on it. I unfortunately don’t have a specific date, just a year and a season.

It sound like this is right, in this case. When my wife entered the Church, our priest just asked her, although she had her certificate. The belief of the protestant administrator (or even atheist for that matter) is not the issue. Just as a priest who struggles with the belief of the Real Presence licitly celebrates the Mass, God is the true Administrator of the sacrament here. The only trouble should be is matter and form. Many places are baptizing “In the Name of Jesus just like Act 2:38”. That is a problem. And with the independent autonomy of many churches, it is nearly impossible to ascertain that proper form was used. So the priest errs to the side of caution; certainly not a bad thing.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m not Catholic, but reading the information provided by 1ke, including the link, even I can understand that it appears a mistake was made in not accepting DarkLight’s attestation of her own adult baptism. Why, then, are other Catholics and Orthodox being rude to her?

 

[AbideWithMe]

It sound like this is right, in this case. When my wife entered the Church, our priest just asked her, although she had her certificate. The belief of the protestant administrator (or even atheist for that matter) is not the issue. Just as a priest who struggles with the belief of the Real Presence licitly celebrates the Mass, God is the true Administrator of the sacrament here. The only trouble should be is matter and form. Many places are baptizing “In the Name of Jesus just like Act 2:38”. That is a problem. And with the independent autonomy of many churches, it is nearly impossible to ascertain that proper form was used. So the priest errs to the side of caution; certainly not a bad thing.

But the OP was there as an adult, so she should be able to attest to the formula used. And she said the church in question has published information about their baptisms; or the pastor of that church could have been contacted to attest to the Trinitarian formula.

I think the Trinitarian formula is standard, still, except for “Oneness” groups and maybe some few mainline churches who may try to get creative.

 

[DarkLight]

But the OP was there as an adult, so she should be able to attest to the formula used. And she said the church in question has published information about their baptisms; or the pastor of that church could have been contacted to attest to the Trinitarian formula.

I think the Trinitarian formula is standard, still, except for “Oneness” groups and maybe some few mainline churches who may try to get creative.

I think the reason I was actually presented with matters, too. If the reason presented had been an uncertainty about the formula I would understand better, and I think my friends would not object. After all these are people who believe as we do that baptism has power against original sin and would say that an unbaptized Christian is an oddity if not an outright oxymoron.

But the reason that was actually given basically amounted to “we can’t enter this into the records right like this.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

I think the reason I was actually presented with matters, too. If the reason presented had been an uncertainty about the formula I would understand better, and I think my friends would not object. After all these are people who believe as we do that baptism has power against original sin and would say that an unbaptized Christian is an oddity if not an outright oxymoron.

But the reason that was actually given basically amounted to “we can’t enter this into the records right like this.”

I agree. Perhaps just explain to your friends that it appears a mistake was made in this particular instance, which didn’t follow Catholic teaching.

 

[sousley]

But the OP was there as an adult, so she should be able to attest to the formula used. And she said the church in question has published information about their baptisms; or the pastor of that church could have been contacted to attest to the Trinitarian formula.

I think the Trinitarian formula is standard, still, except for “Oneness” groups and maybe some few mainline churches who may try to get creative.

I didn’t say that I didn’t agree with the OP. I said I agreed with DarkLight’s assessment that there are some who may confuse what the Church teaches and what the individual priest says. And yes, I think that there are an increasing number of those seeking “their own uniqueness” opting for the misunderstanding of Acts 2:38, or some other words, for a baptismal formula. I don’t know if DarkLight attested to the form or not, only to the baptism taking place on a provable time. My wife had published information about the belief of the pastor regarding baptism (from 1973 and about 20 pages long) and other than “I believe” statements and a smattering of bible verses, it never once addressed form.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

IYes, you can.

Can. 876 To prove the conferral of baptism, if prejudicial to no one, the declaration of one witness beyond all exception is sufficient or** the oath of the one baptized if the person received baptism as an adult.**

A “witness” is someone other than yourself in Canon law just as in civil law.

.

 

[1ke]

A “witness” is someone other than yourself in Canon law just as in civil law.

Please read again.

One may have a witness “or the oath of the one baptized if the person received baptism as an adult”

The OP was an adult when baptized, therefore may give her own oath.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I had to get a conditional baptism to enter the Catholic church. There is no doubt in my mind that my original baptism (which I clearly recall) was valid, but I was told since I couldn’t provide an exact date I had to be conditionally baptized anyways. The trouble is this got back to my protestant friends and some of them are quite offended. Basically they see it as a “rebaptism” of someone who has a perfectly good baptism and find it offensive that mine wasn’t accepted. Truth to be told I almost agree with them - it seems somewhat disrespectful to do a conditional baptism for defects of paperwork without any real doubt of the validity of the original baptism. I was there, I’m quite sure I was baptized.

How would you answer this?

I find this quite ironic because when I left the Catholic Church…the Protestant Denomination I went to made me be re-baptized as they did not view my baptism as an infant as valid. I find that offensive.

So, I would tell them that there are lots of Protestant denominations who do not accept valid Catholic infant baptisms. The Catholic church does accept Protestant baptisms as valid as long as it is in the Trinitarian formula. However we do require proof of that. So, the Church is not saying yours was invalid, per se. What they are saying is that “in case it was not in the Trinitarian formula” then you are now baptized…and if it was…you are taking a bath . It’s not meant to be a slam to Protestant baptism but to ensure that you are truly baptized.

I mean…I bought a rosary at a second hand story…and took it to Father to have blessed. He gave it a conditional blessing because he said it probably already was blessed. Same thing.

 

[Memaw]

I think a lot of people here are confusing “what the church teaches” with “what an individual priest says.” And that’s part of the issue here. I understand - as do the people objecting - the idea of a conditional baptism. In fact many of them would do the same in a case, perhaps, of a child’s baptism that was not recorded. After all they themselves would not admit an unbaptized person to the communion table.

What’s strange about my case is it seems there was good evidence of a prior baptism. But what I was told was that I needed some sort of paper documentation, or at the very least I needed some sort of documentation that had an exact date on it. I unfortunately don’t have a specific date, just a year and a season.

It’s over and done with so why all the fuss. Why don’t you just go on with you new Catholic Faith and put this behind you. You have an exciting ‘adventure’ ahead of you just learning about your Catholic Faith. I’m 77 years old, a cradle Catholic and I’m still learning. It’s wonderful. Catholic Answers can answer so many of your questions much better than we can. And they can help you understand it too. Prayers for you and your family. God Bless, Memaw

 

[DarkLight]

It’s over and done with so why all the fuss. Why don’t you just go on with you new Catholic Faith and put this behind you. You have an exciting ‘adventure’ ahead of you just learning about your Catholic Faith. I’m 77 years old, a cradle Catholic and I’m still learning. It’s wonderful. Catholic Answers can answer so many of your questions much better than we can. And they can help you understand it too. Prayers for you and your family. God Bless, Memaw

If we “put everything behind” or “don’t make a fuss” we will never be able to explain our faith to anyone in our lives.

It seems to me that people are assuming the worst about my life and my friends that simply isn’t in the thread. Why is that? Why does asking a simple question or even finding a particular practice offensive suddenly make someone an anti-cathollic bigot or mean someone is obsessed or not letting things go, or not willing to learn about their faith?

 

[Memaw]

If we “put everything behind” or “don’t make a fuss” we will never be able to explain our faith to anyone in our lives.

It seems to me that people are assuming the worst about my life and my friends that simply isn’t in the thread. Why is that? Why does asking a simple question or even finding a particular practice offensive suddenly make someone an anti-cathollic bigot or mean someone is obsessed or not letting things go, or not willing to learn about their faith?

Your not making the situation any better by siding with your non-Catholic friends against the Church. Many have told you why Baptism is sooo important to the Catholic Church that it has to be done right or one is NOT baptized at all. I don’t know why some priest are more lax about that but they shouldn’t be. It is to important. We cannot wish ourselves to be Baptized properly. You should talk to your priest about this and let him explain it more thoroughly. He can reassure you that the Church cares deeply about Baptism and you should be thankful She does. Like I said before, some people do lie about things like that. I knew a woman once that married a man and several years and 2 children later she found out he was a bigamist. She loved him dearly and it hurt her sooo much. She never would have dreamed he would lie about a thing as important as that. He has 3 children by his ‘real’ wife.
I don’t think anyone’s ‘assuming the worst’ about your life or your friends. Many non-Catholics do not understand why the Catholic Church’s teachings are soo important to Her. Look back over history and see who has held closely to Christ’s teachings, You will find it has been and always will be the Catholic Church. Trust HER. God Bless, Memaw

 

[DarkLight]

Your not making the situation any better by siding with your non-Catholic friends against the Church. Many have told you why Baptism is sooo important to the Catholic Church that it has to be done right or one is NOT baptized at all. I don’t know why some priest are more lax about that but they shouldn’t be. It is to important. We cannot wish ourselves to be Baptized properly. You should talk to your priest about this and let him explain it more thoroughly. He can reassure you that the Church cares deeply about Baptism and you should be thankful She does. Like I said before, some people do lie about things like that. I knew a woman once that married a man and several years and 2 children later she found out he was a bigamist. She loved him dearly and it hurt her sooo much. She never would have dreamed he would lie about a thing as important as that. He has 3 children by his ‘real’ wife.
I don’t think anyone’s ‘assuming the worst’ about your life or your friends. Many non-Catholics do not understand why the Catholic Church’s teachings are soo important to Her. Look back over history and see who has held closely to Christ’s teachings, You will find it has been and always will be the Catholic Church. Trust HER. God Bless, Memaw

Aaaaand we’re back to “questioning the way a single priest did things”=“siding against the church”. Look, I and my friends are both ok with the idea of conditional baptism in general. It’s the fact that things seem so strange the way it was done. I was told a simple certificate would be ok but not having witnessed it. Nor was I given any reason to think there was actual doubt about my baptism, but that since I didn’t have an exact date it couldn’t be entered into the register and therefore had to be redone.