J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
:tiphat: Much obliged, my brother.You always say the best things I want to say but can never seem to get them out in such a coherent way. God Bless you brother.
- Status
C
carlos19
Guest
thanks guysâŚI will let you know how it works out
T
Trebor135
Guest
As per post #14, can anyone speak to whether chrismation (confirmation) can be administered more than once in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches?
V
Vico
Guest
Once.
CCEO
Chapter II. Chrismation with Holy Myron
Canon 692 - It is necessary that those who are baptized be chrismated with holy myron, that by a seal they be signed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and be made more proper witnesses and co-builders in the Kingdom of Christ.
Canon 693 - Holy myron, which is made from the oil of olives or other plants and from aromatics, is confected only by a bishop, with due regard for particular law which reserves this power to the patriarch.
Canon 694 - According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.
Canon 695 - §1. Chrismation with holy myron must be administered in conjunction with baptism, except in a case of true necessity, in which case, however, it is to be seen that it is administered as soon as possible.
§2. If the celebration of chrismation with holy myron is not done together with baptism, the minister is obliged to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered.
Canon 696 - §1. All presbyters of the Eastern Churches can validly administer this sacrament either along with baptism or separately to all the Christian faithful of any Church sui iuris including the Latin Church.
§2. The Christian faithful of Eastern Churches validly receive this sacrament also from presbyters of the Latin Church, according to the faculties with which these are endowed.
§3. Any presbyter licitly administers this sacrament only to the Christian faithful of his own Church sui iuris; when it is a case of Christian faithful of other Churches sui iuris, he lawfully acts if they are his subjects, or those whom he lawfully baptizes in virtue of another title, or those who are in danger of death, and always with due regard for the agreements entered between the Churches sui iuris in this matter.
Canon 697 - Sacramental initiation in the mystery of salvation is perfected in the reception of the Divine Eucharist, and thus the Divine Eucharist is administered after baptism and chrismation with holy myron as soon as possible according to the norms of the particular law of the each Church sui iuris.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Eastern Catholics, like Roman Catholics, understand chrismation as imparting an indelible mark on the soul, so it cannot be repeated. The Eastern Orthodox do re-chrismate under certain circumstances. For example, if someone leaves the OrthodoxHow fortuitous that this topic came up. I know of someone in essentially the same situation. I understand why the baptism of infants is so important, but I also see that making a public profession of faith by being baptized as an adult can be really meaningful.
Baptism is only supposed to be administered once, and the same rule applies for confirmation in the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. I believe that chrismation (the term used is different, but it refers to the same sacrament) can be administered more than once in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, however.
What about looking for a Maronite or other sui iuris church and inquiring about this matter there?
Church and desires to return, that person will be received back into the Church by confession and chrismation.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Ahh, thank you for the correction
A
andrewstx
Guest
I am thinking that if she was origianlly baptised âin Jesusâ Nameâ in a oneness Pentecostal church her baptism is not valid and she should be baptised for the first time.
This will not be rebaptism at all, since Jesusâ Name baptism is not valid.
This will not be rebaptism at all, since Jesusâ Name baptism is not valid.
S
SecretGarden
Guest
If she wants to reaffirm her baptism, I stand by my point. When you are baptized as a baby, one doesnât remember it therefore if she feels like this is the right step, she should be allowed to do what she feels is best. There is a big difference between a faith of an infant vs one of an adult. It doesnât matter how much people quote the catechism or scripture in the end, the decision is between her and God. I know several mainline Protestants such as from the United Church of Canada as well as the Anglician church who were baptized as infants and later decided to be rebaptised as an adult. For them it felt right. Their denominations teach the same thing as the Catholic church in this case. Itâs not as if she has decided to drop her faith, she is in fact growing closer to God which is what we should all strive for. Christianity isnât about following the rules, the bible is very clear on that. Itâs about having an active relationship with Christ. All of the Catholic churchâs teachings and sacraments are all directed towards that!!!
D
dochawk
Guest
Folks have tried saying this gently, and that apparently hasnât worked.
Your âpointâ is heretical, and directly contradicts the teaching of the church, and the very nature of baptism.
There is no such thing as ârebaptismââ and it is not possible to have a Catholic rebaptism, much like a woman priest is impossible.
that some Christians who dot understand the nature of baptism think that there is value in repeated non-sacramental baptisms does not make it OK.
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
some EO do this, not all. some do it for a non-orthodox, such as a Catholic, entering their church; some do it for other orthodox entering their church, and some do I after excommunication (and some allow priests to excommunicate, and excommunicate fairly regularly as penanc!).
hawk
V
Vico
Guest
dochawk refers to what is called Character:
Council of Trent, Session VII, Cannon 9 [March 3, 1547]*
Canon 9. If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, by reason of which they cannot be repeated,[4] let him be anathema.
[4] Eugene IV in decr. ad Armenos (Denzinger, no. 695) below:
EUGENIUS IV 1431-1447, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445, Ecumenical XVII (Union with the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites)
Decree for the Armenians [From the Bull âExultate Deo,â Nov. 22, 1439]
695 In the fifth place we have reduced under this very brief formula the truth of the sacraments of the Church for the sake of an easier instruction of the Armenians, the present as well as the future. There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily. Of these the five first ones are ordained for the spiritual perfection of each and every one in himself, the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church. For, through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we increase in grace, and are made strong in faith; reborn, however, we are strengthened and nourished by the divine sustenance of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur the disease of the soul, through penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually and corporally, according as is expedient to the soul, through extreme unction; through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased. All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled. Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person. The remaining four do not imprint a sign and admit of repetition.
References
Trent:
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm
Denzinger:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
Council of Trent, Session VII, Cannon 9 [March 3, 1547]*
Canon 9. If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, by reason of which they cannot be repeated,[4] let him be anathema.
[4] Eugene IV in decr. ad Armenos (Denzinger, no. 695) below:
EUGENIUS IV 1431-1447, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445, Ecumenical XVII (Union with the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites)
Decree for the Armenians [From the Bull âExultate Deo,â Nov. 22, 1439]
695 In the fifth place we have reduced under this very brief formula the truth of the sacraments of the Church for the sake of an easier instruction of the Armenians, the present as well as the future. There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily. Of these the five first ones are ordained for the spiritual perfection of each and every one in himself, the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church. For, through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we increase in grace, and are made strong in faith; reborn, however, we are strengthened and nourished by the divine sustenance of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur the disease of the soul, through penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually and corporally, according as is expedient to the soul, through extreme unction; through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased. All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled. Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person. The remaining four do not imprint a sign and admit of repetition.
References
Trent:
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm
Denzinger:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
You are wrong on thisâŚitâs never necessary to rebaptise and the Catholic Church will not do so. Trying to push her towards that will only lead to someone telling her no.
Everytime we come into Church and dip our hands in the holy water, it is a reminder of our baptismâŚfor me who was baptized at 7 days old as much as someone who was baptized at 20 years old. We are claimed for ChristâŚwhy do we need to redo that?
AlsoâŚthe Church does not teach that one should do whatever they âfeelâ is best. That does not lead to a strong relationship with Christ. If I base my relationship with my husband only on âfeelingsâ then what happens when we hit a rocky time? There are times when our prayer life may feel dry, going to Mass may feel boringâŚwhat happens then if it is only based off of how I âfeelâ?
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Please post the Bible verse(s) which state(s) that âChristianity isnât about following the rules.â
Catholics have an âactive relationship with Christâ by following the rules of our faith â rules which He laid down or delegated to our leaders, the bishops.
Protestants may be baptized again â they make up their own rules. Catholics may not. The Church forbids it. The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16).
Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Tell her it may be a temptation to doubt Godâs providence. The Church performed a valid baptism - many canonized saints were baptized as infants and never made a âprofession of faith,â etc⌠are they not in heaven?
You know, you might ask her why she even believes baptism is important (well obviously, because the Church says so, as she rightly believes). The point is this, then: doesnât that very same Church who told her that baptism is necessary also tell her by virtue of the very same authority that her baptism was valid and efficacious?
That might help to show an inconsistency in the logic.
Tell her to look at this (from scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html)
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, âRepent and be baptizedâŚâ Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptizedâ (âMetanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.â) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parentsâ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. âThose far offâ refers to those who were at their âhomesâ (primarily infants and children). Godâs covenant family includes children. The word âchildrenâ that Peter used comes from the Greek word âteknonâ which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that âteknonâ includes infants. Here, John as a âteknonâ (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses âteknonâ for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word âhouseholdâ comes from the Greek word âoikosâ which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydiaâs faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parentsâ faith, not the childrenâs faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Churchâs practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a âbelieverâs baptismâ requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows âoikosâ generally includes children.
You know, you might ask her why she even believes baptism is important (well obviously, because the Church says so, as she rightly believes). The point is this, then: doesnât that very same Church who told her that baptism is necessary also tell her by virtue of the very same authority that her baptism was valid and efficacious?
That might help to show an inconsistency in the logic.
Tell her to look at this (from scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html)
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, âRepent and be baptizedâŚâ Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptizedâ (âMetanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.â) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parentsâ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. âThose far offâ refers to those who were at their âhomesâ (primarily infants and children). Godâs covenant family includes children. The word âchildrenâ that Peter used comes from the Greek word âteknonâ which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that âteknonâ includes infants. Here, John as a âteknonâ (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses âteknonâ for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word âhouseholdâ comes from the Greek word âoikosâ which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydiaâs faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parentsâ faith, not the childrenâs faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Churchâs practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a âbelieverâs baptismâ requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows âoikosâ generally includes children.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Tell her all Catholics renew their Baptismal vows at Easter. Once you have received the Sacrament of Baptism you donât need to do it again. Baptism is not a confession of faith in the Catholic Church.
In case no oneâs mentioned it, not only is it not possible to be baptized twice, but to make the attempt is a sacrilege and therefore a mortal sin.
One cannot simply say âItâs between her and Godâ because God would never approve of a sacrilege. And we know this because he has revealed this through Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.
An active relationship with Christ does not involve committing a sacrilege against a Sacrament he instituted. One cannot merely do what âfeelsâ right. One must do what is right. And a sacrilegious baptism never is.
M
Mintaka
Guest
The point is that Baptism is a Sacrament. The priest or whoever baptizes people â they may act as Godâs instrument, but Baptism isnât done by any power of theirs. The people being baptized â itâs not them baptizing themselves; they donât have that power.
We are baptized in the Name and by the power of God, the Holy Trinity.
If we doubt the power of our Baptisms, we doubt the power of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
We are baptized in the Name and by the power of God, the Holy Trinity.
If we doubt the power of our Baptisms, we doubt the power of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
V
Vico
Guest
I think SecretGarden may be referring to Luke 18:10-14 Publican and Pharisee.
C
ChelleyD
Guest
As others have already so eloquently stated, there is no reason or foundation for re-baptizing an already validly baptised Catholic. We are not led by the âspiritâ, aka our âfeelingsâ. We are led by the Holy Spirit, who would never lead us to do something that is not Godâs will.
I am also a convert (although not from Pentecostalism), so I know how difficult it can be sometimes to âlet goâ of understandings weâve grown up with. I humbly suggest you do some more study on this issue for your own growth and understanding in the Faith. Welcome home!
C
carlos19
Guest
Hi all we had a nice long talk. I think she understands now the holiness of the sacrament of baptism. Everyone provided helpful comments especially those of you who reminded us about the renewal of our baptisms at Easter. We have both decided to study the sacraments and the bible. We also decided to read the Early Church fathers.
Thank you all for your support.
Thank you all for your support.
- Status