Regarding the validity of my Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esran

Guest
Dear Friends,

I converted to Catholicism and was Confirmed in the Church a year ago. However, I was not given conditional Baptism. Recently, I have come to doubt the validity of my prior Baptism in the Southern Baptist Church. I am not sure the Catholic Church in my area sufficiently investigated my Baptism in this former denomination.

In the Baptist Church, they Baptized me, “Upon your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Buried in the likeness of his death, raised in the likeness of his resurrection.”

I was submerged at “buried in the likeness of his death” and then pulled out of the water at “raised in the likeness of his resurrection.” I was immersed in the water only once.

The Baptist Church I went to does not believe in the necessity of Baptism, nor do they believe that Baptism cleanses original sin or gives the life of the Holy Spirit. They do not believe it was mandated by Christ for salvation. It is just a public profession of personal faith in their view.

What do I do? Can I get a conditional Baptism still? Is there such a thing as getting a conditional Confirmation? Please help me.

Pax Christi,
Geoffrey
 
If you’re not sure, then I would recommend talking to a good priest about it.

It seems to me that your baptism was valid.

Here’s why:
  1. The fact that the one baptizing you does not believe as the Church does about baptism does not render it invalid. All that was necessary was that he had the intention of doing what the Church does, that is, the virtual intention of doing what Christians do when they baptize.
  2. The number of times you were immersed does not render baptism invalid. All that is necessary is the ablution by physical contact of the body with water. In the early Church, baptisms were done by three immersions to emphasize the three Persons or by one immersion to emphasize the unity.
It really comes down to this: Does the immersion/infusion/aspersion of water have to occur while the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” are being said?
  1. It seems to me (I don’t know of any clarification from the Church) that the immersion/infusion/aspersion must occur at least proximately to the invocation of the Trinity, that is, within what could be called the same baptismal action such that the words are clearly associated with the act of immersing/pouring/sprinkling.
 
Yes, but my situation is dire. If there is doubt about the validity of my Baptism, my Confirmation into the Catholic Church was not valid, and I have been receiving the Eucharist for an entire year unworthily.
 
Esran said:
Yes, but my situation is dire. If there is doubt about the validity of my Baptism, my Confirmation into the Catholic Church was not valid, and I have been receiving the Eucharist for an entire year unworthily.
Click to expand...
I understand the concern. When you were received into the Church, what was the investigation into your baptism like?
 
Your Baptism is certainly valid, since it contains the words:
“I baptize you in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”
along with the use of water (pouring or immersion).

The triple immersion is not essential to the validity of the Sacrament.
The additional wording used is not such as to harm the validity either.

There is no need for any concern; your subsequent reception of the
Sacraments was also certainly valid.

Further investigation is not necessary, since water and the proper words
were present.

Ron Conte
catholicplanet.com
 
My mother said I was baptized, and they just accepted it. There was not investigation to my knowledge into the intent of the minister who performed it. I don’t even have a certificate.
 
Further investigation is not necessary, since water and the proper words
were present.
Click to expand...
But it is. Proper intent is necessary. There needs to be further investigation.
 
Esran said:
My mother said I was baptized, and they just accepted it. There was not investigation to my knowledge into the intent of the minister who performed it. I don’t even have a certificate.
Click to expand...
The intention of the minister is presumed unless there’s some clear evidence to the contrary, e.g., if he said “I don’t intend to baptize you. I baptize you in the name …”

For instance, we don’t have to ask the priest after Mass every day whether he intended to consecrate the bread and wine.

The intention necessary is a virtual intention, and it is separate from believing as the Church does. The minister of baptism simply needs to intend to do “what the Church does.”

Regarding the investigation:

IANACL (I am not a Canon Lawyer), but this is from the Code of Canon Law:
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.
Click to expand...
It sounds like your baptism was valid. Do you have a particular reason to think that it was invalid?
 
From NewAdvent:

VII. CONDITIONAL BAPTISM
From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see Conc. Prov. Balt., I.) If it be uncertain whether the convert’s baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: “If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name”, etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.
 
The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:-- If baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the convert’s former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii;
 
Esran said:
That is my reason for doubting its validity.
Click to expand...
Without being lengthy, you do have reason to doubt. (The intention is what the issue is. The number of immersions is insignificant.) Since the church you were baptized in does not believe that sins are forgiven in baptism, I would question their intention to “do what the Church does when it baptizes”. (Now, even this has other implications as even an atheist can baptize with the right intention - so I’m not saying your baptism is invalid.)

Now, as far as receiveing the Eucharist, regardless of the baptismal circumstance, if you have not received the Eucharist since this matter has become an issue for you, you could not have sinned since there could not be an intention to do so (speaking strictly and only as this pertains to the baptism issue).

Early on, you received advice to speak with a priest (a good priest was the actual suggestion 😃 ). If you have not already called to make an appointment, do so.
 
Esran said:
Dear Friends,

I converted to Catholicism and was Confirmed in the Church a year ago. However, I was not given conditional Baptism. Recently, I have come to doubt the validity of my prior Baptism in the Southern Baptist Church. I am not sure the Catholic Church in my area sufficiently investigated my Baptism in this former denomination.

In the Baptist Church, they Baptized me, “Upon your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Buried in the likeness of his death, raised in the likeness of his resurrection.”

I was submerged at “buried in the likeness of his death” and then pulled out of the water at “raised in the likeness of his resurrection.” I was immersed in the water only once.

The Baptist Church I went to does not believe in the necessity of Baptism, nor do they believe that Baptism cleanses original sin or gives the life of the Holy Spirit. They do not believe it was mandated by Christ for salvation. It is just a public profession of personal faith in their view.

What do I do? Can I get a conditional Baptism still? Is there such a thing as getting a conditional Confirmation? Please help me.

Pax Christi,
Geoffrey
Click to expand...
Conditional Confirmation is not necessary. I would speak with your pastor about the situation and ask for Conditional Baptism.
 
Okay, would I need confirmation again though? It says that if baptism is invalid, confirmation is too. What do I do about that?
 
Down here, where there are so many varieties of congregations calling themselves “Baptist” with such a variety of practices for baptism, every case must be investigated since we cannot assume a Baptist ceremony is valid. For instance, I was just handed a certificate for a new RCIA candidate who will be preparing for reception next year, it states something to the effect, you have accepted Christ and entered into new life on this date da da da. No where does it say anything about the Trinity, and the man does not remember, although it happened when he was a teenager, he does remember being immersed completely. The deacon is investigating for me. My So. Bap neighbor down the road baptizes anyone over the age of reason who requests it, by pouring, in the Trinitarian formula. But he did tell me if they get a new pastor, there is never a guarantee that pastor will follow the same practice.

Simply ask your pastor to investigate more fully, for your peace of mind. You have not done anything sinful or unworthy. If he thinks you should refrain from communion he will tell you. Your confirmation is not in doubt, it will become “activated” if and when you are conditionally baptized (which I doubt very much is necessary). You would be in the position of those in Acts who received the Holy Spirit, and then were sent to the apostles for baptism.

Please rest assured no blame, guilt, sin or unworthiness rests on you, even if others were lax.
 
Esran said:
Okay, would I need confirmation again though? It says that if baptism is invalid, confirmation is too. What do I do about that?
Click to expand...
If it turns out that you need to be baptized conditionally, then you would need to be confirmed conditionally as well.
 
dylanschrader said:
If you’re not sure, then I would recommend talking to a good priest about it.

It seems to me that your baptism was valid.

Here’s why:
  1. The fact that the one baptizing you does not believe as the Church does about baptism does not render it invalid. All that was necessary was that he had the intention of doing what the Church does, that is, the virtual intention of doing what Christians do when they baptize.
  2. The number of times you were immersed does not render baptism invalid. All that is necessary is the ablution by physical contact of the body with water. In the early Church, baptisms were done by three immersions to emphasize the three Persons or by one immersion to emphasize the unity.
It really comes down to this: Does the immersion/infusion/aspersion of water have to occur while the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” are being said?
  1. It seems to me (I don’t know of any clarification from the Church) that the immersion/infusion/aspersion must occur at least proximately to the invocation of the Trinity, that is, within what could be called the same baptismal action such that the words are clearly associated with the act of immersing/pouring/sprinkling.
Click to expand...
dylanschrader said:
The intention of the minister is presumed unless there’s some clear evidence to the contrary, e.g., if he said “I don’t intend to baptize you. I baptize you in the name …”

For instance, we don’t have to ask the priest after Mass every day whether he intended to consecrate the bread and wine.

The intention necessary is a virtual intention, and it is separate from believing as the Church does. The minister of baptism simply needs to intend to do “what the Church does.”

Regarding the investigation:

IANACL (I am not a Canon Lawyer), but this is from the Code of Canon Law:

It sounds like your baptism was valid. Do you have a particular reason to think that it was invalid?
Click to expand...
Geoffery,

This is pretty much what my priest was tellling me, also that the intent of the baptism…is with what ministers understanding of what baptism is in their church. And when you come into the Catholic Church and make your profession of faith, you have come into the fullness of understanding of what the true intent of the meaning of baptism. So the profession of faith “activates” the validity of baptism, by you coming into a fuller understanding of baptism. Hope I am explaining that right…😊

I don’t blame you for being concerned, it had me there for a minute…:eek:

I am still going to call my diocese office tomorrow…I’ll let you know what they said…Peace be with you…Pam
 
Esran said:
Okay, would I need confirmation again though? It says that if baptism is invalid, confirmation is too. What do I do about that?
Click to expand...
“It says that if baptism is invalid, confirmation is too.”

What is “it”?

Your Baptism is possibly not invalid,only a Biishop can make that determination. However it is questionable, which is why you are seeking Conditional Baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top