Sub conditione, or When did the Catholic church start accepting other churches' baptism as valid?

[AtDawn]

When I read about converts to the Catholic faith around the previous turn of century, they were baptised into the Catholic Church. Sometimes it says they were baptised sub conditione - I understand that as conditional baptism, a baptism performed “in case previous baptism wasn’t valid”. If so, it seems the CC didn’t have a firm statement as to whether baptisms in Lutherans churches was valid?

When dit the CC decide to fully accept baptism performed by other Christian Churces? Is it a Vatican II-thing? Before that, where all converts performed sub conditione or was there a time where the CC considered the baptism of Luther’s disciples’ disciples’ disciples (etc) certainly not valid at all?

 

[RaphaelJ]

Truly? As far as I am aware, most mainstream Protestants would not have been conditionally baptized because though their theology is flawed, their form was not.

 

[sw85]

Truly? As far as I am aware, most mainstream Protestants would not have been conditionally baptized because though their theology is flawed, their form was not.

Well, this is sorta true but incomplete. I’m most aware of the case of the Church of England since Fr. Hunwicke has written about it extensively. In previous ages (and I think it was, in fact, around Vatican II that this changed), Anglican converts were conditionally rebaptized. The reason for this is not a defect in their rubrics – officially, Anglican priests are still baptize with moving water in the Trinitarian formula – but for a defect in discipline. Put simply, Anglican priests don’t reliably abide by the rubrics and Anglican bishops don’t much care to enforce them, and where there are defects in form, the baptismal register does not note it, hence we could not even trust their baptismal certificates.

We hear stories all the time of “wet thumb” baptisms or baptisms in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. And Anglicans are not the only ones who do this, and the problem looks like it will get worse, not better, as time passes. So I would actually support going back to conditional conferral of sacraments on converts unless there is something like video evidence.

 

[hazcompat]

THE WORK OF ST. OPTATUS
BISHOP OF MILEVIS
AGAINST THE DONATISTS
Translated BY THE REV. O. R. VASSALL-PHILLIPS, B.A.
BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD
PRIEST OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER

Lest anyone should say that without thought I call them brethren, I would reply that such they are, for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet saying: You who fear the Word of the Lord, hear ye the Word of the Lord. To those who detest and curse you, and are unwilling to be called your brethren, say ye nevertheless: “You are our brethren.”
They therefore are without doubt brothers, though not good brothers. Wherefore let no one marvel that I term those brothers, who are unable to escape being our brethren. They and we have one spiritual birth, though widely differing is our conduct.
(They could not escape this, because by Baptism they had become Sons of God, and therefore brethren of all the brothers of Christ.)
Concerning the sins of these our brethren, I will speak in another place. For they, sitting over against us, speak evil things about us. They consort with that Thief who robs God, and share their lot with adulterers (that is, with heretics), and make their sins an object of praise, and plan reproachful words against us Catholics.
They all each in his own district make a great noise with wicked words. To some of their statements I may reply when opportunity arises. …
For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defense of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity.
It is not an argument in favor of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws, that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated.
But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise, you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if since it is only lawful once [to baptise] for you it were lawful, for others unlawful.
If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptise, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers. If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptise, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism.
If it be unlawful for sinners to baptize, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also. Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptize, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.

323AD???

Peace

 

[sw85]

Again, the issue isn’t that we rejected the validity of their Baptisms because their theology was wonky. It wasn’t even that we rejected the validity of their Baptisms because their form was defective, which it often wasn’t. It was that we couldn’t trust the validity of their Baptisms because we couldn’t trust that they observed the form, which they often didn’t.

 

[Usagi]

It’s not a “Vatican II thing.” The issue of rebaptism of heretics goes back at least to the controversy between Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian in the 250s.

Usagi

 

[Yarb]

When dit the CC decide to fully accept baptism performed by other Christian Churces? Is it a Vatican II-thing?

I think it was during or before the time of Augustine of Hippo, so more than 16 centuries ago.

 

[chaplainmom]

Through the ecumenical dialogue that took place between Pope John Paul II and various other non-Catholic Christian communities, mutual understandings were reached where the Catholic Church considered herself to be in “partial communion” with other denominations. Because of the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999), it is my understanding that a Lutheran baptism is in communion with a sacramental Catholic baptism.

 

[1ke]

When I read about converts to the Catholic faith around the previous turn of century, they were baptised into the Catholic Church. Sometimes it says they were baptised sub conditione - I understand that as conditional baptism, a baptism performed “in case previous baptism wasn’t valid”. If so, it seems the CC didn’t have a firm statement as to whether baptisms in Lutherans churches was valid?

i don’t know where you “read about” this, but if it was Wikipedia, please be aware this is rife with inaccuracy.

When dit the CC decide to fully accept baptism performed by other Christian Churces?

Late 2nd or early 3rd century.

Is it a Vatican II-thing?

No.

Before that, where all converts performed sub conditione

Conditional baptism would have been used if there was real doubt regarding the validity of or performance of baptism.

or was there a time where the CC considered the baptism of Luther’s disciples’ disciples’ disciples (etc) certainly not valid at all?

no.

 

[triumphguy]

2 former atheist laypeople (I know - redundant - the point being they don’t have to be clergy) who now desire to be Christian can validly baptize each other as long as they have the intent and use the proper form and matter; i.e want and intend to baptize, use the words “I baptize thee,” and the Trinitarian formula and use water.

 

[ProVobis]

i don’t know where you “read about” this, but if it was Wikipedia, please be aware this is rife with inaccuracy.

For the record, if you find any inaccuracies, you can “edit” the sentence or paragraph and/or you can attach a “citation needed” to it. Most blogs don’t allow such editing to a foreigner.

 

[hazcompat]

For with regard to any who has allowed himself to be rebaptised by you resurrection
is not denied him, for he has believed in the resurrection of the Flesh. He shall rise indeed, but naked. But because he has allowed you to spoil him of his wedding
garment, he shall hear the Father of the Family speak thus :
My friend, that is to say I recognise thee once thou didst renounce the devil, and wert converted to Me, and I gave thee a wedding garment. Why hast thou come thus, without that which I gave thee ? that is to say, why hast thou not what I gave thee ?
For no one can be angry with one who has not something, which has not been given him.
Thou didst receive a wedding garment, together with these others, and thou alone art without one. Why hast thou come naked and doleful? Who has torn his spoils
from thee ? What thieves doors hast thou entered ? What murderous robbers hast thou met on the way ? However many they are who come thus, they shall have no place at that banquet.

Saint Optatus

 

[EIF5A]

If one wants to convert, what proof does the Church require to show that a valid baptism had been performed in a non-Catholic church?

 

[AtDawn]

i don’t know where you “read about” this, but if it was Wikipedia, please be aware this is rife with inaccuracy.

I read this (why the citation marks?) in a very respected Catholic (Jesuit) magazine. It’s in a language that you probably won’t understand, and concerns Jesuit history in a country where you probably never have set your foot. I can give a rough translation in private message if you like.

2 former atheist laypeople (I know - redundant - the point being they don’t have to be clergy) who now desire to be Christian can validly baptize each other as long as they have the intent and use the proper form and matter; i.e want and intend to baptize, use the words “I baptize thee,” and the Trinitarian formula and use water.

Some people have posted various years here. “Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian in the 25s.” “Augustine of Hippo, so more than 16 centuries ago” - about 400 A.D. I’m not sure to what extent whatever was settled then can be applied to Lutherans. Are any of those dates/people involved in the rule as described by triumphguy above?

Lutherans were once considered heretics. Nowadays, they/we are rather considered schismatic but at the time, Lutherans were killed - not in my neighbourhoods, but still (Night of Saint Bartholomew, 1572). The 30 years war (1618–1648) is usually considered a religious war, between protestants and Catholics. In such times of animosity, it wouldn’t be strange if these heretic’s baptisms were not considered valid. Neither would it be strange if people, a long long time after, baptised sub conditionale just in case… but I’m just speculating here.

If one wants to convert, what proof does the Church require to show that a valid baptism had been performed in a non-Catholic church?

That’s an interesting question, and well on topic! Perhaps the people in question simply didn’t want to ask for a certificat of baptism, and were baptised sub conditionale. Nowadays being a Catholic in these neighbourhoods isn’t that much a big deal, but I can well imagine there was a time when converts prefered that not everybody know about their conversion.

Through the ecumenical dialogue that took place between Pope John Paul II and various other non-Catholic Christian communities, mutual understandings were reached where the Catholic Church considered herself to be in “partial communion” with other denominations. Because of the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999), it is my understanding that a Lutheran baptism is in communion with a sacramental Catholic baptism.

I have difficulties in believing it is that recent. If so, people would know about the change.

Well, this is sorta true but incomplete. I’m most aware of the case of the Church of England since Fr. Hunwicke has written about it extensively. In previous ages (and I think it was, in fact, around Vatican II that this changed), Anglican converts were conditionally rebaptized. The reason for this is not a defect in their rubrics – officially, Anglican priests are still baptize with moving water in the Trinitarian formula – but for a defect in discipline. Put simply, Anglican priests don’t reliably abide by the rubrics and Anglican bishops don’t much care to enforce them, and where there are defects in form, the baptismal register does not note it, hence we could not even trust their baptismal certificates.

We hear stories all the time of “wet thumb” baptisms or baptisms in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. And Anglicans are not the only ones who do this, and the problem looks like it will get worse, not better, as time passes. So I would actually support going back to conditional conferral of sacraments on converts unless there is something like video evidence.

The reason for the sub conditionen in the cases I’m refering to could be something like that, possibly. I doubt it, but I have been wrong before.

 

[hazcompat]

It is Jesus Christ who baptizes!

Peace