Should I insist on a conditional baptism?

[Bookcat]

I would follow your priest’s advice. He is the one appointed by the Church to make the decision. Surely, you don’t want to start a trend of questioning everything your priest says. If he says your baptism is valid I would accept that. It does not sound to me as if at the time you asked your father to “baptise” you that you were in a situation where it would have been impossible to go to a minister and be baptised. It sounds to me that at the time both you and your father must have had a very defective understanding of baptism. This would affect your father’s intent. I don’t believe you have had a valid baptism. However, it doesn’t matter what I think or anybody else on this forum. At best we can only give you our well intentioned opinions. This situation is best resolved by talking it through again with your priest. I’m sure he won’t mind going through it again if you explain that you’re not sure that you understand.

Not a question of starting a trend of questioning what a priest says…(on the one hand one should generally trust etc)…but it is simply the case that a Priest can get things wrong for whatever reason (deficient seminary education (such did happen in the 70’s etc)…missed class that day…error in judgment …misunderstood a circumstance etc lots of reasons…) and in this case the facts warrant further consideration and prob. a conditional baptism… for this is an important thing.

In such cases of remaining serious doubt as to if a baptism is valid a person is “conditionally baptized”…and of course the Bishop’s Chancery office can also be “involved in the case”…it is “their area”.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Not a question of starting a trend of questioning what a priest says…(on the one hand one should generally trust etc)…but it is simply the case that a Priest can get things wrong for whatever reason (deficient seminary education (such did happen in the 70’s etc)…missed class that day…error in judgment …misunderstood a circumstance etc lots of reasons…) and in this case the facts warrant further consideration and prob. a conditional baptism… for this is an important thing.

In such cases of remaining serious doubt as to if a baptism is valid a person is “conditionally baptized”…and of course the Bishop’s Chancery office can also be “involved in the case”…it is “their area”.

OK let’s say the priest is wrong. If it were me I would talk it through with the priest again and I would make sure that he was fully aware of all my misgivings. Going to the diocese at this point has the potential to damage the OP’s relationship with the priest. I would point out that a priest has posted on the thread and it seems he’s in agreement with the OP’s priest. Of course, if the OP has conditional baptism and everything is done correctly we must remember that the priest is obliged to administer conditional baptism privately. Therefore, the OP will miss out on being baptised in the midst of their local Catholic community, which would be very sad if conditional baptism isn’t required. What will happen if the person the OP speaks to at the chancery gets it wrong? I think we should assume the OP’s priest is correct until we can definitively prove otherwise.

 

[Bookcat]

OK let’s say the priest is wrong. If it were me I would talk it through with the priest again and I would make sure that he was fully aware of all my misgivings. Going to the diocese at this point has the potential to damage the OP’s relationship with the priest. I would point out that a priest has posted on the thread and it seems he’s in agreement with the OP’s priest. Of course, if the OP has conditional baptism and everything is done correctly we must remember that the priest is obliged to administer conditional baptism privately. Therefore, the OP will miss out on being baptised in the midst of their local Catholic community, which would be very sad if conditional baptism isn’t required. What will happen if the person the OP speaks to at the chancery gets it wrong? I think we should assume the OP’s priest is correct until we can definitively prove otherwise.

I actually noted talking again…pursuing it with the Priest again…yes that is where he would start. (as I noted)

Just cause a person is Priest does not make him correct…even if another Priest agrees with him --and by the way the Priest you may be referring to is not a Catholic Priest…
(it can be easy too for faithful Catholics to slip into a kind of clericalism with these kinds of things…) anyhow…on the one hand…yes “trust ones Pastor generally”…and on the other and sometimes others can be correct and the Priest can make a mistake…so if one knows otherwise…such should often be pursued…so with the grand importance of things here…more investigation is needed.

if he was baptized and they go ahead with a Baptism only…with confirmation and Communion…then that baptism that night …will not be a real baptism…and his sins will *not *have been washed away and since no confession…they will not have been absolved…and such is a very reasonable concern.

He will by the way still confirmed at vigil etc and receive his first communion…at the Vigil…

so it is very important to pursue this for even a non-religious person can baptize…just as his Father did…intending to baptize him…and such would be valid if done with the right matter and form…

 

[jmcrae]

There are two things here:

1. You were not in any danger of death when your father baptized you.
2. You were not being baptized into any Christian community; your father was not a believer, which means that your baptism did not initiate you into the fellowship of any Christian community. (Even if you started fellowshipping with a Christian community beginning directly after the baptism, your father was not an authorized representative of that community.)

These two defects are probably what your priest is looking at, to discern that your baptism was not done with the proper intent, and thus was not valid.

 

[jmcrae]

if he was baptized and they go ahead with a Baptism only…with confirmation and Communion…then that baptism that night …will not be a real baptism…and his sins will not have been washed away and since no confession…they will not have been absolved…and such is a very reasonable concern.

I consider it best to trust the priest to know what he is doing.

Seminary is not like secretarial school - he could not “miss that day” and graduate from Seminary with no understanding of how baptism works - not even in the 1970s.

 

[Redbaron998]

I went through this a bit when I became Catholic. I was baptised in the United Methodist Church when i was about 10. When I came into the church they said they needed record of my Baptism, most Methodist Churchs do not give a certificate, though some can look it up for you and make one should you need it. I couldnt get one so my parents gave testomony that I was Baptised and the Church accepted it.

About a year afterwards I wondered to myself if I should have been baptised right and proper when I came into the church. I thought about reqesting a conditional one, but ultimately I let it go. Methodist use the right methods and I was validly confirmed and recieved my First Eucharist so I trust the Church.

Basically if you are really worried about it, request a conditional one. If they give it to you great, if they say no then trust in thier judgement. If you really did need it then God would have made them say yes.

If you have a valid Confirmation then you need not worry, before you could get it the Church looked into it and said you had a valid Baptism and the Church has authority to do that.

(and try to keep in mind God isnt looking for loopholes to try to keep you out of Heaven, he isnt gonna go back and say, “Oh you have lived a virtous life and were very devout in my Catholic Church but before then at your baptism they mispernounced a word so you dont get in.”)

 

[Bookcat]

There are two things here:

1. You were not in any danger of death when your father baptized you.
2. You were not being baptized into any Christian community; your father was not a believer, which means that your baptism did not initiate you into the fellowship of any Christian community. (Even if you started fellowshipping with a Christian community beginning directly after the baptism, your father was not an authorized representative of that community.)

These two defects are probably what your priest is looking at, to discern that your baptism was not done with the proper intent, and thus was not valid.

Neither of these would effect validity of baptism.

If he had intent to baptize (do what the Church does…that is baptize and make a Christian for example)… even a non-believer can baptize…

Long ago in the 3rd century …this was decided.

 

[Bookcat]

I consider it best to trust the priest to know what he is doing.

Seminary is not like secretarial school - he could not “miss that day” and graduate from Seminary with no understanding of how baptism works - not even in the 1970s.

Priests still get things wrong…and even in these sorts of things. That was simply a funny way to say it…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I actually noted talking again…pursuing it with the Priest again…yes that is where he would start. (as I noted)

Just cause a person is Priest does not make him correct…even if another Priest agrees with him --and by the way the Priest you may be referring to is not a Catholic Priest…
(it can be easy too for faithful Catholics to slip into a kind of clericalism with these kinds of things…) anyhow…on the one hand…yes “trust ones Pastor generally”…and on the other and sometimes others can be correct and the Priest can make a mistake…so if one knows otherwise…such should often be pursued…so with the grand importance of things here…more investigation is needed.

if he was baptized and they go ahead with a Baptism only…with confirmation and Communion…then that baptism that night …will not be a real baptism…and his sins will *not *have been washed away and since no confession…they will not have been absolved…and such is a very reasonable concern.

He will by the way still confirmed at vigil etc and receive his first communion…at the Vigil…

so it is very important to pursue this for even a non-religious person can baptize…just as his Father did…intending to baptize him…and such would be valid if done with the right matter and form…

We do not know the full facts. I suggest the OP is quite confused on these issues. He talks about having a conditional baptism and then going to confession and receiving conditional absolution. Why would he receive conditional absolution? Yes, others besides priests can be right. I would venture to conclude from the limited information given that the OP’s “baptism” and subsequent “conditional baptism” were both invalid. If I follow your line of reasoning that the father was able to baptise and if there is any doubt about the original baptism then this was resolved when the father gave the conditional baptism so there’s no need for any baptism, conditional or otherwise. The OP couldn’t be conditionally baptised at the Easter Vigil because conditional baptism has to be given privately. So if he were to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil he’ll have to be conditionally baptised privately sometime before the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday. We don’t even know if this priest felt “out of his depth” and has sought advice. There are too many “ifs” and “buts” in the limited information we have to make a sound judgement.

 

[jmcrae]

Priests still get things wrong…and even in these sorts of things. That was simply a funny way to say it…

If the priest has made an error (which is in doubt - and when in doubt, we trust the priest, right? We are not Protestants, rushing to the books to prove our priest wrong, nor to argue with him) IF the priest has made an error, God will not impute the error to Cameron89 but rather, God will supply the grace to do what Cameron89 and the priest intend to do.

Even if there is an error, God will do this.

Have faith in God, even if you have a hard time having faith in the priest.

 

[Bookcat]

We do not know the full facts. I suggest the OP is quite confused on these issues. He talks about having a conditional baptism and then going to confession and receiving conditional absolution.

He is actually pretty informed.

yes such was how things have historically been worded.

For if he was validly baptized by his father…then he would need absolution for any mortal sins…

If the “conditional baptism” is actually the valid one…then such sins would not be valid matter for confession (for they would no longer exist after baptism)…one needs actual sins to be absolved…at least a venial sin or previously confessed sin…(nothing prior to baptism is such valid matter)…

 

[Bookcat]

If I follow your line of reasoning that the father was able to baptise and if there is any doubt about the original baptism then this was resolved when the father gave the conditional baptism so there’s no need for any baptism, conditional or otherwise. The OP couldn’t be conditionally baptised at the Easter Vigil because conditional baptism has to be given privately. So if he were to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil he’ll have to be conditionally baptised privately sometime before the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday. We don’t even know if this priest felt “out of his depth” and has sought advice. There are too many “ifs” and “buts” in the limited information we have to make a sound judgement.

yes such is what I said…the conditional baptism would take place prior to Easter…as well as the confession.

Not saying “we” should decide things…but that the person should continue to pursue things with his Priest and Chancery if need be…

and that it seems from what has been said that a conditional Baptism is the solution…unless the doubt is really cleared up.

 

[Bookcat]

If the priest has made an error (which is in doubt - and when in doubt, we trust the priest, right? We are not Protestants, rushing to the books to prove our priest wrong, nor to argue with him) IF the priest has made an error, God will not impute the error to Cameron89 but rather, God will supply the grace to do what Cameron89 and the priest intend to do.

Even if there is an error, God will do this.

Have faith in God, even if you have a hard time having faith in the priest.

I addressed this up above.

There still remains very good doubts in this case.

It is an important matter that needs more exploration and Cameron89 is right in pursuing this question.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I suggest the OP is quite confused on these issues. He talks about having a conditional baptism and then going to confession and receiving conditional absolution. Why would he receive conditional absolution?

I suggest the OP is thinking with clarity on these issues. He has a prudent doubt about whether he was previously baptized validly, so he is seeking conditional baptism. There are two possibilities: either he was not really baptized previously, or he was.

If he was not, then he needs to be baptized before he can receive the other sacraments. But if he *was *validly baptized before, then the conditional baptism does nothing to forgive his sins and he needs Confession before he can receive the other sacraments.

Code of Canon Law #845:
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.
§2. If after completing a diligent inquiry a prudent doubt still exists whether the sacraments mentioned in §1 were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally.

So if he were to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil he’ll have to be conditionally baptised privately sometime before the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday.

Conditional baptism followed by conditional absolution followed by confirmation at the Easter Vigil seems ideal, if Cameron can get a priest to help. Fortunately, there still is plenty of time between now and Holy Thursday to work this out.

We don’t even know if this priest felt “out of his depth” and has sought advice. There are too many “ifs” and “buts” in the limited information we have to make a sound judgement.

Could be! Cameron is not a standard-issue convert. I hope his priest has the “pastoral sensitivity” and insight to be able to treat him as an individual.

Cameron, my best friend was an unusual convert, too. Following gentle persistence on our part, an accommodation was made for her, and I don’t see why one could not be made for you, too. Just do the best that you can to follow a path that is pleasing to our Lord, and then however things turn out, I’m sure God will reward you for your faithfulness.

 

[jmcrae]

I addressed this up above.

There still remains very good doubts in this case.

Let’s let the priest who is actually on the case make this decision. Keep in mind, he is just as good a Catholic as you or me.

It is an important matter that needs more exploration and Cameron89 is right in pursuing this question.

But not to the point of taking his salvation into his own hands. He must, at some point, let go and trust God.

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s let the priest who is actually on the case make this decision. Keep in mind, he is just as good a Catholic as you or me.

Yes the Priest…the person involved and perhaps the chancery…are all involved…I never said go get someone to baptize you in the sink…

But not to the point of taking his salvation into his own hands. He must, at some point, let go and trust God.

Yes…but Sacraments are to be done validly…and when serious doubt remains they are to be subsequently done conditionally…such is trusting God and the Church…for that is how the Church approaches it…and he has of course the right in the Church to pursue this…

 

[Bookcat]

Cameron

While we are on the subject of Baptism…

Here are some great meditations for you:

The early Church described Baptism as fotismos, as the Sacrament of illumination, as a communication of light, and linked it inseparably with the resurrection of Christ. In Baptism, God says to the candidate: “Let there be light!” The candidate is brought into the light of Christ. Christ now divides the light from the darkness. In him we recognize what is true and what is false, what is radiance and what is darkness.
~ Pope Benedict XVI Homily Easter Vigil 2009

Jesus descended for us into the dark waters of death. But through his blood, so the Letter to the Hebrews tells us, he was brought back from death: his love united itself to the Father’s love, and thus from the abyss of death he was able to rise to life. Now he raises us from the waters of death to true life. This is exactly what happens in Baptism: he draws us towards himself, he draws us into true life. He leads us through the often murky sea of history, where we are frequently in danger of sinking amid all the confusion and perils. In Baptism he takes us, as it were, by the hand, he leads us along the path that passes through the Red Sea of this life and introduces us to everlasting life, the true and upright life. Let us grasp his hand firmly! Whatever may happen, whatever may befall us, let us not lose hold of his hand! Let us walk along the path that leads to life. ~ Pope Benedict XVI Homily Easter Vigil 2008

Read the whole things here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080322_veglia-pasquale_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090411_veglia-pasquale_en.html

 

[jmcrae]

Bookcat;7108630 he has of course the right in the Church to pursue this...[/COLOR:
He has done so, and an answer has been given.

Unless he feels that he neglected to tell the priest something important about what happened, he’s fine.

If he forgot to mention something important, he should go back and mention it.

 

[Bookcat]

He has done so, and an answer has been given.

Unless he feels that he neglected to tell the priest something important about what happened, he’s fine.

If he forgot to mention something important, he should go back and mention it.

He has still VERY REASONABLE DOUBTS about what is planned.

And thus it is very very good for him to pursue this further…even with the Chancery if need be…this is very important matter…and his has the right and reasonable faith reason to do so…

He is not fine with it.

We are not talking about a person with scrupulosity who is forever questioning things…he has very very valid doubts and reasons…and I agree with them (from my Theological background and experience with these things) as does our other poster Mike…

Anycase…he noted above that he is going to pursue the matter further…which is good. So things are going in the right direction…

 

[jmcrae]

He has still VERY REASONABLE DOUBTS about what is planned.

And thus it is very very good for him to pursue this further…even with the Chancery if need be…this is very important matter…and his has the right and reasonable faith reason to do so…

He is not fine.

What you are proposing will destroy his relationship with his priest, and for no good reason. Furthermore, it will inspire anxiety, every time his priest says anything that he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t agree with.

Do you want him running to the highest authorities, every time anything happens that he doesn’t understand?

That’s not what being Catholic is about.