Should I insist on a conditional baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cameron89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
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?
.
Click to expand...
Nope. Need not do any such thing.

and… He already had these reasonable questions…I did not give them to him.

Just cause a Priest makes mistake in one thing…does not negate the rest of Priests or what that Priest says//etc…and common sense will tell him that. Heck my wife can tell him I make mistakes… Never said “run to the highest authorites etc…” but this is a very important matter and he needs it settled…and it really seems it should be a conditional baptism with confession…

and as for the Chancery getting involved perhaps…that is their job…one of the things they are there for…they do these things all the time…ordinary life in a diocese.

he is pursuing it with the Priest…and it is a very important matter…a person should not be rebaptized if he was already baptized…and if he needs conditonal Baptism and confession but does not do them…well his sins are not washed away if he was already baptized and nor absolved…not in time for Easter Confirmation and Communion upon reception into the Church.

Look he came here cause HE had these very reasonable doubts…and well they are reasonable…he should pursue the matter further…with all due reverence and charity and knowing that yes some things need to be pursued further and some things do not…
 
Bookcat said:
Nope. He already had these reasonable questions…I did not give them to him.

Just cause a Priest makes mistake in one thing…does not negate the rest of Priests or what that Priest says//etc…and common sense will tell him that. Heck my wife can tell him I make mistakes… Never said “run to the highest authorites etc…” but this is a very important matter and he needs it settled…and it really seems it should be a conditional baptism with confession…
Click to expand...
Not to me. I don’t think we should encourage the habit of second-guessing the priest, but here is what I think:

He was not in any danger of death (one possible valid baptism done by an unbeliever is in the danger of death) and he was not being initiated into any non-Catholic Christian community by his father, since his father was not the official representative of any such community (the other possible valid baptism by an unbeliever is into a non-Catholic Christian community).

Baptism is a Sacrament - it is valid within its proper contexts. But it is not magic - simply saying the right words and doing the right things does not necessarily “make it work,” if the context isn’t there.
 
jmcrae said:
Not to me. I don’t think we should encourage the habit of second-guessing the priest, but here is what I think:

He was not in any danger of death (one possible valid baptism done by an unbeliever is in the danger of death) and he was not being initiated into any non-Catholic Christian community by his father, since his father was not the official representative of any such community (the other possible valid baptism by an unbeliever is into a non-Catholic Christian community).
Click to expand...
Danger of death has NOTHING to do with validity. A valid baptism can be done by a non-believer at any time. No one need be any “minister” in any religious body…

(I do have a degree in Theology from Steubenville…and I know sacramental theology very well…such would NEVER make it invalid)
 
Bookcat said:
Danger of death has NOTHING to do with validity. A valid baptism can be done by a non-believer at any time. No one need be any “minister” in any religious body…

(I do have a degree in Theology from Steubenville…and I know sacramental theology very well…such would NEVER make it invalid)
Click to expand...
Then how is it that being baptized into a Mormon community or SDA community (a non-Trinitarian community), using exactly the same formula, is an invalid baptism, and we give former Mormons and former Adventists full baptism, instead of conditional baptism?

If the baptism is not in the danger of death, and not initiating you into a Trinitarian community, it is not valid in that case. Right?
 
jmcrae said:
Then how is it that being baptized into a Mormon community or SDA community (a non-Trinitarian community), using exactly the same formula, is an invalid baptism, and we give former Mormons and former Adventists full baptism, instead of conditional baptism?

If the baptism is not in the danger of death, and not initiating you into a Trinitarian community, it is not valid in that case. Right?
Click to expand...
yes the Mormons. They do not intend Christian Baptism…the Mormon community is not a even Christian community…they intend Mormon Baptism into the Mormon community by their Baptism (to be a Christian is to believe in the Trinity…and the Jesus is the Son of God etc…) (details can be read from the response from the Church)

Such was a very difficult case…one which the Church resolved.

as for this question:

If the baptism is not in the danger of death, and not initiating you into a Trinitarian community, it is not valid in that case…

Danger of death has NOTHING to do with validity…and as long as the person is intending to do what the Church does for example make the person a Christian (Mormans are not Christian…such is a unique case…)…then with right matter and form…it is going to be presumed valid.

if you start your own group tomorrow that has a baptism …say the

Mickmouse Church which uses the form of Christian Baptism …but to baptise them in the name of the Father (meaning Donald duck) and the son (meaning mickey mouse) and the Holy Spirit (meaning Elmer Fud) well…then you have a problem.

But a non believer intending to baptize a person …thus making them a Christian…cause they asked them to do so…well would be valid if with right matter and form. The Holy Spirit is going to do his work…

Danger of death has nothing to do with validity.

(And PS: the father in this case…could even have had the explicit intent to baptize him Catholic…since such was the kids interest at the time…and the origin of his request when he was a kid

Again something that needs to be looked into further.)
 
Bookcat said:
yes the Mormons. They do not intend Christian Baptism…the Mormon community is not a even Christian community…they intend Mormon Baptism into the Mormon community by their Baptism (to be a Christian is to believe in the Trinity…and the Jesus is the Son of God etc…) (details can be read from the response from the Church)

Such was a very difficult case…one which the Church resolved.

as for this question:

If the baptism is not in the danger of death, and not initiating you into a Trinitarian community, it is not valid in that case…

Danger of death has NOTHING to do with validity…and as long as the person is intending to do what the Church does for example make the person a Christian (Mormans are not Christian…such is a unique case…)…then with right matter and form…it is going to be presumed valid.

if you start your own group tomorrow that has a baptism …say the

Mickmouse Church which uses the form of Christian Baptism …but to baptise them in the name of the Father (meaning Donald duck) and the son (meaning mickey mouse) and the Holy Spirit (meaning Elmer Fud) well…then you have a problem.

But a non believer intending to baptize a person …thus making them a Christian…cause they asked them to do so…well would be valid if with right matter and form. The Holy Spirit is going to do his work…

Danger of death has nothing to do with validity.
Click to expand...
So, being baptized into a non-Trinitarian community is not valid, but being baptized into nothing at all is valid? :confused:
 
jmcrae said:
So, being baptized into a non-Trinitarian community is not valid, but being baptized into nothing at all is valid? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes. as noted. but the person is not being baptized into nothing at all…he is being baptized “into Christ” and being made a Christian at his request…(and thus in at least a partial kind of communion with the Church by the very fact of the Baptism)

(And PS: the father in this case…could even have had the explicit intent to baptize him as Catholic…since such was the kids interest at the time…and the origin of his request when he was a kid…but that is not really the point here…and is not needed for a valid baptism)
 
Bookcat said:
Yes. as noted. but the person is not being baptized into nothing at all…he is being baptized “into Christ” and being made a Christian at his request…(and thus in at least a partial kind of communion with the Church by the very fact of the Baptism)

(And PS: the father in this case…could even have had the explicit intent to baptize him as Catholic…since such was the kids interest at the time…and the origin of his request when he was a kid…but that is not really the point here…and is not needed for a valid baptism)
Click to expand...
It seems to me you’re convinced this baptism was valid so why the need for even a conditional baptism. If conditional baptism is granted doesn’t that mean (a) if he was never baptised before then the conditional baptism will baptise him and cleanse him of his sins; (b) if he has been baptised before the conditional baptism won’t baptise him and any mortal sins committed after his baptism won’t be cleansed. But because we don’t know if he was previously validly baptised we cannot know what effects his conditional baptism has; therefore, he would need to go to confession after conditional baptism. If he has absolute baptism aren’t the end results the same (a) if he was never baptised before it will baptise him and (b) if he was validly baptised he won’t be baptised because you can’t be baptised twice so after absolute baptism he could go to confession.

Now, going on to another point regarding the minister of baptism. I’m with jmcrae on this one. I thought that baptism could only be given by a layperson be they Catholic, Anglican, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever if the person being baptised was in danger of death. Ordinarily we should be baptised by a sacred minister usually our parish priest. From what you are saying I could have baptised my children by pouring water over their heads while saying “N, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” I really am not convinced about that at all.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Now, going on to another point regarding the minister of baptism. I’m with jmcrae on this one. I thought that baptism could only be given by a layperson be they Catholic, Anglican, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever if the person being baptised was in danger of death. Ordinarily we should be baptised by a sacred minister usually our parish priest. From what you are saying I could have baptised my children by pouring water over their heads while saying “N, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” I really am not convinced about that at all.
Click to expand...
I’m not either, especially since “grandparent baptisms” of kids whose non-practicing Catholic parents don’t take them to church are not considered valid. The child has to be baptized in Church, with the consent of his parents.

Grandparent baptisms are certainly done in the Trinitarian formula with the intent of making the kid Catholic, but the Church forbids them and does not recognize them as valid, except in danger of death.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
It seems to me you’re convinced this baptism was valid so why the need for even a conditional baptism. If conditional baptism is granted doesn’t that mean (a) if he was never baptised before then the conditional baptism will baptise him and cleanse him of his sins; (b) if he has been baptised before the conditional baptism won’t baptise him and any mortal sins committed after his baptism won’t be cleansed. But because we don’t know if he was previously validly baptised we cannot know what effects his conditional baptism has; therefore, he would need to go to confession after conditional baptism. If he has absolute baptism aren’t the end results the same (a) if he was never baptised before it will baptise him and (b) if he was validly baptised he won’t be baptised because you can’t be baptised twice so after absolute baptism he could go to confession.

.
Click to expand...
Yes I have repeatedly said that such after a conditional baptism…he will need to make a confession…

NO as to the second part. For he if receives a “absolute baptism”…at the Easter vigil…he is not able to go to confession (and in any case if it is the real baptism…he will not have any valid matter to confess)…before Confirmation and Holy Communion…no time…which he would need to do if the first baptism was valid…

and such is not the way the Church does things…
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Now, going on to another point regarding the minister of baptism. I’m with jmcrae on this one. I thought that baptism could only be given by a layperson be they Catholic, Anglican, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever if the person being baptised was in danger of death. Ordinarily we should be baptised by a sacred minister usually our parish priest. From what you are saying I could have baptised my children by pouring water over their heads while saying “N, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” I really am not convinced about that at all.
Click to expand...
for it to be licit…yes a Catholic needs to be in extreme circumstances…

but it is VALID in any case …no need to be a minister etc (such was decided by the Church long ago…)

If you had done so without the extraordinary circumstances…as A Catholic such would objectively be wrong to do…

But we are not talking about a Catholic…

and in ANY case IF you had done so…with the right intent…it would still be Valid.

Such is simply the reality involved…

And I could add…it is Christ who baptizes…
 
jmcrae said:
I’m not either, especially since “grandparent baptisms” of kids whose non-practicing Catholic parents don’t take them to church are not considered valid. The child has to be baptized in Church, with the consent of his parents.

Grandparent baptisms are certainly done in the Trinitarian formula with the intent of making the kid Catholic, but the Church forbids them and does not recognize them as valid, except in danger of death.
Click to expand...
Actually “Grandparent baptisms” are illicit…outside the extraordinary circumstances such as danger of death…

but if done with the proper form and intent

THEY ARE VALID and are recognized as such by the Catholic Church.

and the child could NOT be rebaptized. Period. Unless there really is a doubt…then conditional baptism is involved…
 
jmcrae said:
I’m not either, especially since “grandparent baptisms” of kids whose non-practicing Catholic parents don’t take them to church are not considered valid. The child has to be baptized in Church, with the consent of his parents.
Click to expand...
Who says that the “grandparent baptisms” you describe are not valid?
 
Matthew_Holford said:
It seems to me you’re convinced this baptism was valid so why the need for even a conditional baptism.
Click to expand...
I am convinced that it *may * have been valid…but given the circumstances…it it were my “baptism” I would seek a conditional baptism …(again in my own case I would know more as to what went on…so I assume there would still be good doubt there)

and in this persons case…I would urge him to further investigation and perhaps the conditional baptism…
 
Bookcat said:
Actually “Grandparent baptisms” are illicit…outside the extraordinary circumstances such as danger of death…

but if done with the proper form and intent

THEY ARE VALID and are recognized as such by the Catholic Church.

and the child could NOT be rebaptized. Period. Unless there really is a doubt…then conditional baptism is involved…
Click to expand...
I thought for validity a person had to give consent to receiving a sacrament. Obviously infants are incapable of giving or refusing consent. So in their case consent has to be given by the parents. If the parents refuse consent isn’t the necessary consent lacking?
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I thought for validity a person had to give consent to receiving a sacrament. Obviously infants are incapable of giving or refusing consent. So in their case consent has to be given by the parents. If the parents refuse consent isn’t the necessary consent lacking?
Click to expand...
that goes only for adults…
 
or rather …that is not the case for infants. (obviously other older Children need to consent as well…)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top