Question about the validity of my baptism

[Hothsauce]

I was baptised in the Baptist Church as an adult before coming home to the Catholic Church. I learned recently that according to Aquinas, multiple people cannot split the duties of a baptism. When I was baptized 3 years ago, the pastor read the Triune formula while two other people immersed me in water. I spoke with my priest who is currently waiting to hear from a canon lawyer, but in the interim he has told me to assume the baptism is valid until proven otherwise. Does anyone have thoughts on the matter?

 

[Maximilian75]

Trust your pastor. The salvation of souls is the buisness of priests. He knows what’s best for you.

 

[Dlee]

Yes, trust your pastor. On a personal note - it used to be “sacred” that in the Baptist Church, the pastor alone performed all baptisms. Over the past 20+ years, that has changed. I’ve witnessed fathers, grandfathers,uncles performing the baptism of a relative (sometimes child, spouse, grandchild.)

 

[LostSheep7]

Trust your priest, but your baptism indeed seems suspicious.
I’m in a similar situation as I’m entering the Catholic Church this year and my priest decided that I will be baptized under condition

 

[Gorgias]

Trust your priest, but your baptism indeed seems suspicious.

Then apparently, all baptisms of women in the early Church were ‘suspicious’. (Back then, since it was baptism by full immersion in the nude, it was improper for the baptizing bishop to be perform this immersion or even be present, so female ministers took the ladies being baptized to a secure location, dunked them, and brought them back to the bishop to complete the rites.)

The two people, I’d wager, merely assisted the pastor. Unless there’s something else going on that @Hothsauce hasn’t mentioned, it appears to be a valid baptism.

 

[Pup7]

Trust your priest, but your baptism indeed seems suspicious.
I’m in a similar situation as I’m entering the Catholic Church this year and my priest decided that I will be baptized under condition

I’m a Catholic convert.

It’s not suspicious.

That is how it’s done in many Baptist churches. That is their way of doing it, the baptism is in the Trinitarian form, and therefore the Catholic Church recognizes it as valid.

That’s like saying my Methodist marriage is “suspicious” because the minister was a woman and the Catholic Church only has male priests…no, it’s valid because it was done according to that church’s method and she was validly ordained in the Methodist church.

 

[Canvas]

The person performing the Baptism does not have to be ordained or even Christian. Any person, male or female can perform a valid Baptism. It is most properly performed by a person who has been ordained, but literally anyone can perform a valid Baptism provided they do it in proper form and with intent. The question here is whether the form was proper because the person reciting the formula was not the one immersing.

 

[Hothsauce]

@Andy235 Yes, this is exactly it. My priest hasnt heard back from a canon lawyer yet but he said it’s most likely not an issue. I have followed his instruction and haven’t been abstaining from the Eucharist. He has also asked me to be a lector in a Mass since I brought this up, so he seems very confident about it.

 

[runningdude]

If it makes you feel better, there is an Eastern rite of mass that omits the words of institution, and the Pope recognizes it as valid, as it was used since the earliest days of Christianity.

As another poster mentioned, the particular set of actions used in your baptism have been used in the Early Church, and were never found defective. Be at peace.

 

[mdgspencer]

 You should trust your priest.

 It is true that someone can be baptized only once, that is, by one person. That

baptism, which can be done only once, it seems, was done by a Baptist. It is, from the judgement of your priest,

a perfectly good baptism.

 

[Gorgias]

The person performing the Baptism does not have to be ordained or even Christian. Any person, male or female can perform a valid Baptism.

Yes, but only in an emergency. (Otherwise, in the Catholic Church, it must be performed by a priest or deacon.)

It is most properly performed by a person who has been ordained

I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘licitly’, not ‘properly’.

However, you seem to be talking about Catholic baptism. The topic under consideration here is a non-Catholic Christian baptism. Different standard, there.

, but literally anyone can perform a valid Baptism provided they do it in proper form and with intent.

I don’t think you’re saying this (in fact, I hope you’re not!), but it sounds like you’re claiming that you can walk up to your parish’s baptismal font after Mass this Sunday and baptize someone and claim it was ‘proper’. Are you?

The question here is whether the form was proper because the person reciting the formula was not the one immersing.

Thought experiment for you: if you go to confession to a priest who only speaks Chinese, and you use an interpreter in order to confess your sins, is the absolution invalid simply because the priest heard your sins through an intermediary, and not himself?

In any case, the ritual as laid out in the “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”, in its general introduction, mentions that it is permitted for the baptizing minister to have others (ordained or lay) assisting him in the immersion. In the actual text of the ritual of baptism, it mentions that “the celebrant immerses” the catechumen. However, it points out that, especially if there are many catechumens, assisting minister(s) may immerse.

So, at the very least, we already know the answer to the general question: it is licit for an assisting minister to immerse while the minister of the sacrament says the words. To the specific question, it would seem to be reasonable to ask the diocesan liturgy office, but their answer would seem only to be whether they feel it was warranted in this case, especially given that it occurred outside the Church.

 

[Canvas]

The fact is, if you actually look it up, the Church has actually looked into cases of a layperson (for example, a grandparent) taking it on themselves to Baptize. In many cases, these are considered actual Baptisms, even when not in an emergency. If they used the correct form. So your example of someone Baptizing another at the Font is in many cases actually valid. It might be illicit, but it can be an actual Baptism.

 

[Gorgias]

The fact is, if you actually look it up, the Church has actually looked into cases of a layperson (for example, a grandparent) taking it on themselves to Baptize.

Right. And, the Church teaches distraught grandparents, “don’t baptize your grandchild in the bathtub… please!”

In many cases, these are considered actual Baptisms, even when not in an emergency.

So, we’re really risking going off on a tangent here. There are two questions: one has to do with baptisms within the Catholic Church, and the other has to do with baptisms outside the Catholic Church. The OP has asked the latter question, and you and I seem to be discussing the former question.

So, since we’re discussing “valid baptism in the Catholic Church” (which isn’t the question in this thread), we can confidently say that baptism by someone who is not an ordained Catholic minister can only occur licitly in an emergency. Yes, it would be valid (not ‘actual’), but it would be illicit if it takes place outside of an emergency.

If they used the correct form. So your example of someone Baptizing another at the Font is in many cases actually valid. It might be illicit, but it can be an actual Baptism.

And, this raises another issue. The person who baptizes must inform their parish priest that they’ve done so, in order that the baptism might be recorded in the parish records. The anxiety over the discussion they’d have with the pastor, when they tell him what they’d done, would hopefully discourage them from doing it at all.

 

[Hothsauce]

Do you have a link to the outline of baptism you’re speaking of? I’m intrigued

 

[Gorgias]

Do you have a link to the outline of baptism you’re speaking of? I’m intrigued

No, I don’t. It’s in the ritual book itself. I don’t know, offhand, if there are any online resources with the text of the book.

 

[Canvas]

So you are admitting a Baptism performed by a layperson may be a valid Baptism? I am not talking about whether it was licit, but whether it was valid. If the parents did not know, or approve, it was not licit, but if grandma used the correct form and intent, the Church has to admit it was a valid Baptism after investigation.

 

[Gorgias]

So you are admitting a Baptism performed by a layperson may be a valid Baptism? I am not talking about whether it was licit, but whether it was valid. If the parents did not know, or approve, it was not licit, but if grandma used the correct form and intent, the Church has to admit it was a valid Baptism after investigation.

Are you talking about a non-Catholic baptism, or a baptism intended to be valid in the Catholic Church? In the former, it’s absolutely valid and licit (if matter and form are valid). In the latter, it’s valid but illicit. It “actually happens”, to use your parlance, but it should not. Especially when it’s not an emergency (and no, “my children don’t want to baptize my grandbaby! Oh noes!” is not an emergency!), a Catholic shouldn’t be doing this.

(And, in fact, once a Catholic does choose that route, there are additional responsibilities: getting the baptism registered in the parish, caring for the instruction in the faith of the child, ensuring that the child attend Mass and get preparation for reception of the sacraments, etc, etc. Baptism ain’t magic. We, as Catholics, shouldn’t treat it as if it were.