I am actually of the opinion that the Church does not use conditional baptism nearly often enough. There are many cases, in the Anglican Communion and elsewhere, of churches using “wet thumb” baptisms etc., even when their official liturgical books require pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Thus even a baptismal certificate would in those cases not be sufficient evidence that a person was, in fact, baptized, since the collapse of liturgical discipline in that communion means the content of official liturgical books doesn’t mean that they were faithfully followed.
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.
There are no such doubts
for you, in your position. But the Church is not in your position, it has no experienced or seen what you have. It is not your judgment that matters here, it is the judgment of the Church, specifically of the cleric who will be admitting you to full communion in the Church.
There is a VERY good reason the Church insists on witnessing and recording the conferral of Sacraments. I am aware of a number of cases that arose in Scotland some centuries ago in which it was decided that the presence of witnesses was sufficient to make a marriage valid, regardless of its being recorded or the witnesses being (or not being) clerics. Surprise surprise, as a result it often happened that, after the death of a man of any means, a woman might emerge, two “witnesses” in hand, claiming that she was truly his wife and that his “subsequent” marriage to his widow was a fraud, and thereby claim his inheritance. Scottish common law being what it was, these cases – seldom more than extortion on their face – had to be accepted. In this way many families were robbed blind and grave injustices were perpetrated.
Now suppose a person is admitted to full communion on the basis of nothing more than their say-so that they were baptized. Suppose, furthermore, that they marry in the Church. Then suppose that, years later, tiring of their state in life, they seek an annulment on the grounds that they were never validly baptized. Then the tribunal, entertaining this claim, has no more evidence to go on but, again, the petitioner’s say-so, both then (that they were baptized) and now (that they were not). Can you see how it might, then, be an occasion for grave injustice to admit such a person into full communion without something more to go on than their say-so?
None of this is to say of course that you would do such a thing – the point is that the Church has dealt with these issues, extensively, in the past, and has landed on the current praxis as the best compromise between justice and charity and prudence.
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.
You say there is “good evidence” but you cannot even provide a firm date of when this baptism occurred, despite this happening in your adulthood. I remember the exact date of my baptism and frankly, while I remember it happening, I cannot even be sure Father used the Trinitarian formula (he is a faithful priest so I don’t doubt it, but I don’t trust my memory either).
Would it truly not be possible to get the statements of witnesses notarized and submitted? At my own RCIA programs in the past we have accepted such.
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.
That is a general principle, one which may not necessarily apply in this case. A firm oath to the effect that I was baptized, I just don’t remember where or when or by whom, would surely not be accepted, would it? Possibly there is some discretion as to the extent to which an oath may be considered sufficient.
Look, I came here because I have friends who actually care enough to ask how and why I joined the church. …
I’m looking for answers here, not more accusations because people have got some weird idea that I would call anti-catholic people “friends” and are reading into a forum post that somehow this is a huge issue that’s keeping me up at night or something.
Even if you are right (and while I can see how you think you are, I can also see how the priest could be), the simple answer is that your priest/RCIA staff are canon lawyers, hence they are not familiar with every little intricate detail of canon law. Most aren’t. If you disagree with their judgment, and if the outcome matters to you, you might consider placing a phone call to the chancery and asking for their review.
So even if you were right it would not be a sin to lay collectively at the feet of the Church, it would be a prudential foible by a single cleric.
. It’s not meant to be a slam to Protestant baptism but to ensure that you are truly baptized.
:extrahappy:
I messed up the format , sorry , but I am sure you get what I’m saying.