valid baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DreadVandal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DreadVandal

Guest
I’m sure this question has probably been asked. I am a convert from the baptist faith. I was baptized as a baptist. Baptists do not believe that baptism is a sacrament. Also, when I was baptized by immersion, the minister said “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and then plunged me under the water after the words were spoken.

1.) The Church accepts the trinitarian baptisms of baptists, but I’ve always wondered about it since baptists don’t believe that baptism is a sacrament that bestows the forgiveness of sins.

2.) Doesn’t the water have to be touching the skin at the same time that the words are being ponounced? Now it is true that I was kneeling in the water at the time, so technically there was water on my skin.

As you can tell, I am one of those tormented by ambiguity.
 
40.png
Madia:
Did you receive a conditional Baptism when you entered the Catholic Church?newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Click to expand...
No, I was told that the church no longer does conditional baptisms and that it was unnecessary. I was chrismated/confirmed.
 
I found this link on another post fisheaters.com//baptism2.html
Click to expand...
That seems to be a schismatic site so I would ignore what they have to say:
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1915

I’m no expert in this matter so you may want to ask at EWTN when they’re mail boxes open:
ewtn.com/vexperts/question.asp

Also, searching around previous messages such as the ones linked below might help:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=437920&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=conditional+baptism&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=425944&Forums=9&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=baptist&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=55&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=421466&Forums=9&Experts=0&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=baptist&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
 
Hope this answers your questions…

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
95. [T]he following points should be kept in mind:

a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church.

b) The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.

c) Wherever doubts arise about whether, or how water was used,105 res- pect for the sacrament and deference towards these ecclesial Communities require that serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.
 
Wow, okay thanks. I found that link here on this site. So I should be careful.

Still, I didn’t find the EWTN responses very helpful. All they did was assert that the baptisms were valid without showing how the baptist view of baptism and practice does not make it invalid. The simple fact is that baptists do not intend to do what Catholics do when they baptize. The Church intends to make a person born again and wash away original sin. Baptists only intend to make a public display of the personal decision that the believer makes. They deny all sacramental efficacy of baptism. I don’t see how it can be valid. Also, they do pronounce the words at a different time than doing the immersion and none of the EWTN experts addressed this.
40.png
Madia:
That seems to be a schismatic site so I would ignore what they have to say:
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1915

I’m no expert in this matter so you may want to ask at EWTN when they’re mail boxes open:
ewtn.com/vexperts/question.asp

Also, searching around previous messages such as the ones linked below might help:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=437920&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=conditional+baptism&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=425944&Forums=9&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=baptist&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=55&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=421466&Forums=9&Experts=0&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=baptist&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Scott1:
Hope this answers your questions…

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
95. [T]he following points should be kept in mind:

a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church.

b) The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.

c) Wherever doubts arise about whether, or how water was used,105 res- pect for the sacrament and deference towards these ecclesial Communities require that serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.
Click to expand...
But with baptists the issue is not just the personal faith of the minister, the baptist denominations publicly and explicitly deny that baptism is a sacrament. How can they be doing what the church intends?
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
But with baptists the issue is not just the personal faith of the minister, the baptist denominations publicly and explicitly deny that baptism is a sacrament. How can they be doing what the church intends?
Click to expand...
Then EVERY baptism performed by a non-Catholic/Orthodox Church would be invalid, as NONE of them have the same theology as we do concerning original sin etc etc … but I see your point… that is why the last item (serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.) is very important.

Immaculata pray for us,
Scott
 
40.png
Scott1:
Then EVERY baptism performed by a non-Catholic/Orthodox Church would be invalid, as NONE of them have the same theology as we do concerning original sin etc etc … but I see your point… that is why the last item (serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.) is very important.

Immaculata pray for us,
Scott
Click to expand...
Lutherans and Anglicans understand the sacrament of baptism in the same way that we do. In the case of the Reformed churches, its not quite as clear. It seems to me that the most prudent course of action would be to conditionally baptize everyone coming into the church unless they are coming from the Orthodox churches. But, this is not what the Church has decided so I must be wrong.

Still, if the Church is mistaken and I am invalidly baptized, then the only way for me to be saved is to have made an act of perfect contrition without committing any mortal sin right before the moment of my death. It seems my odds are not too good. 😦
 
Actually, I’ll take those odds any day. You might be comforted to take a look in the Catechism regarding baptism of desire (1258,1260,1281 I think). IF you were not validly baptized, then certainly I think you would have baptism of desire. Clearly from your post, if you knew you had not been validly baptized you would want to be baptized. The only reason you are not seeking out baptism, is out of obedience to the Church, who has told you that you are already baptized.
 
40.png
urbana:
Actually, I’ll take those odds any day. You might be comforted to take a look in the Catechism regarding baptism of desire (1258,1260,1281 I think). IF you were not validly baptized, then certainly I think you would have baptism of desire. Clearly from your post, if you knew you had not been validly baptized you would want to be baptized. The only reason you are not seeking out baptism, is out of obedience to the Church, who has told you that you are already baptized.
Click to expand...
Good point. I wonder though. If I am only baptized by desire, even though I can technically make it into heaven, does that mean that all of my participation in the eucharist is still null and void?
 
DreadVandal wrote:
But with baptists the issue is not just the personal faith of the minister, the baptist denominations publicly and explicitly deny that baptism is a sacrament. How can they be doing what the church intends?
Click to expand...
Be of good cheer and worry not! Consider the following:

A certain priest possesses valid Orders but is also satanist and performs a Black Mass. Does he confect the sacrament?

Answer: Sadly, yes! - provided that he is a valid priest and uses the form and matter required for the Church - then he does - but sacrilegiously, of course.

Another scenario: A mother is delivered of a child who is in immediate dander of death. The doctor is a Jew. He knows that the Catholic mother would want her child to be baptized. He pours the water and says the words of Baptism. Presto! The child is a Catholic.

Please read the following thread from Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem’s “100% Catholic Forum”

holyjoe.net/phpBB2_new/viewtopic.php?t=990&start=0

“Be not afraid.”
 
DreadVandel,

You my friend worry too much! If Holy Mother Church considers you baptized, than you are baptized! Rejoice and be happy! **You are Catholic ** and your participation in Holy Communion adds to the Lord’s Supper for all of us! I worry about things like this as well, but really do you think God is worried about a possible technicality? He knows your heart. I will pray God will relieve your anxiety my brother.

Peace,

George
 
The way it’s been explained to me is sort of that it doesn’t matter what doctrinal particulars the baptizer subscribes. It’s that he invokes the trinity and uses the water.
 
Sean O L:
DreadVandal wrote:

Be of good cheer and worry not! Consider the following:

A certain priest possesses valid Orders but is also satanist and performs a Black Mass. Does he confect the sacrament?

Answer: Sadly, yes! - provided that he is a valid priest and uses the form and matter required for the Church - then he does - but sacrilegiously, of course.

Another scenario: A mother is delivered of a child who is in immediate dander of death. The doctor is a Jew. He knows that the Catholic mother would want her child to be baptized. He pours the water and says the words of Baptism. Presto! The child is a Catholic.

Please read the following thread from Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem’s “100% Catholic Forum”

holyjoe.net/phpBB2_new/viewtopic.php?t=990&start=0

“Be not afraid.”
Click to expand...
Don’t forget about intention! I’m assuming the Satanist priest wants to confect the Eucharist in order to desecrate it, but intention is also a condition of validity (at least last I checked and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s “Sacrament” entry). Form, matter, AND intent.
 
Andreas Hofer wrote:
Don’t forget about intention! I’m assuming the Satanist priest wants to confect the Eucharist in order to desecrate it, but intention is also a condition of validity (at least last I checked and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s “Sacrament” entry). Form, matter, AND intent.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course! The “good” satanist WOULD have the intention to do what the Church intends, i.e. “to confect the Eucharist in order to desecrate it.” He knows that anything less would be pointless.
 
In the papal or concilliar documents (e.g. in Denzinger) where can I find something about baptismal infusion or sprinkling? That is where is that these actions are permitted and valid, and that have similar effect than the immersion?
 
it is for the priest preparing you in RCIA, or those he delegates, to determine if your baptism was valid, based on the details you provide and their consultation with the diocese, who has researched this. If it is not valid the baptism at Easter will be your first and only baptism. If it is, you will go to confession sometime before Easter, confess all the sins of your past life and be absolved, then make your profession of faith, be confirmed, and receive first communion. If there is uncertainly you will receive a conditional baptism, possible sometime before the Vigil, or during the vigil and proceed as do the others in the group. any of these scenarios all your sins, actual and original, are forgiven, absolved, removed, done, finished, as far removed from you as the east is from the west.

by the way folks, when our RCIA candidates and catechumens ask specific questions about the sacraments and their preparation, they are neither helped nor guided by off-topic extraneous discussions of baptism of desire, satanism and the like. There is no need for you to confuse them. If you want to go off topic please start a new thread, believe me, they are already confused enough. That is why we have mystagogy after Easter, so they can clear up all the confusion and learn “hey, what just happened to me?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top