The Church has stated that LDS baptisms are not valid even though they use “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” because they have a different understanding of the trinity.
Did they use water? If not, then it is not valid. If so, then I would think it would be, but I think it comes down to you being able to prove it was done correctly (any witnesses?).
Even if you were unsure of the form of your baptism, you would not be re-baptized because a baptism is a one time only event (like being born.) Your priest would give you a conditional baptism which is different because it doesn’t nullify the other baptism, it is more of a “just in case your first baptism was wrong” formality.
All baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit are valid. Even the baptism of Richard Dawkins :yup:.When I first became interested in Roman Catholicism I was pleased to discover that the Catholic Church recognised Presbyterian baptism. Studying this furthered my understanding of the concept of original sin, something unfortunately not well understood by most Presbyterian or other non Roman Catholic Christians
.
Correct. Their intention is not to baptize into a trinitarian God.
The understanding of the church or indeed the individual performing the baptism should of course be correct but a recent case in England arose when a Catholic Priest publicly confessed to his personal belief that he had doubts about the Trinity! The usual media storm ensued and when pressed he said he did not believe in the Trinity period.
The Catholic Church holds that, if you are validly baptized Christian, you are a member of the universal Church, although you are in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. Thus, all valid Christian baptisms are recognized as such by the Catholic Church. An atheist can baptize you, if they use the proper form, matter and intent. That is far from the norm, however.
Not if its LDS.All baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit are valid. Even the baptism of Richard Dawkins :yup:.When I first became interested in Roman Catholicism I was pleased to discover that the Catholic Church recognised Presbyterian baptism. Studying this furthered my understanding of the concept of original sin, something unfortunately not well understood by most Presbyterian or other non Roman Catholic Christians
The word Baptisim ( Βάπτισμα ) means to wash so its rather obvious that water has to be used.
I’m surprised they baptized you at all, since it is generally a point of pride among Quakers that they reject the sacraments (or redefine them to avoid the physical aspect). Still, I agree with the other posters that it sounds valid.
Are you absolutely certain it was in a Quaker meeting-house? I know that there are various types of Quakers, but according to all the Quaker websites I’ve followed up through google. Quakers don’t have sacraments, including baptism, as the individual is enlightened direct, not through clergy or leaders.
If they are not baptised then they are not Christians, however you may feel about them.The word Baptisim ( Βάπτισμα ) means to wash so its rather obvious that water has to be used.
I personally see all Christians as my brothers baptised or not.