Valid Baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Milestone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Milestone

Guest
I was baptized two years ago by my dad, who is a protestant pastor, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Nothing wrong yet, as anyone can perform a valid baptism. However, while I was submerged, I remember thinking to myself, “This is stupid, I don’t want to do this,” feeling like I really meant it. I don’t know why I thought this, as I had been earnestly looking foward to it on my way there, and I was the one that suggested I be baptized. I consented to being baptized in that I let it happen without resistance (not that I felt like resisting), but at the same time, I didn’t feel like I wanted to do it during the actual event. I remember being glad I was baptized once I got home. Does this make my baptism invalid?
 
All the elements were necessary. You were baptized. I’m sure all five of my kids as infants were like “why are you pouring cold water on me, I don’t like this at all!”
 
Milestone said:
I was baptized two years ago by my dad, who is a protestant pastor, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Nothing wrong yet, as anyone can perform a valid baptism. However, while I was submerged, I remember thinking to myself, “This is stupid, I don’t want to do this,” feeling like I really meant it. I don’t know why I thought this, as I had been earnestly looking foward to it on my way there, and I was the one that suggested I be baptized. I consented to being baptized in that I let it happen without resistance (not that I felt like resisting), but at the same time, I didn’t feel like I wanted to do it during the actual event. I remember being glad I was baptized once I got home. Does this make my baptism invalid?
Click to expand...
Validity is not the question. Efficaciousness is. You, as a person who has reached the age of reason, could have been baptized in proper sacramental form, but it was for no good if you didn’t accepted the sacramental graces. The same is true for the infant baptized, who when they reach the age of reason reject God.

Long story short. Legalistically, you have been baptized, in form, and we “confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, so it is not to be repeated. Now, you need to complete the conversion which was the public promise you made by receiving the sacrament, by turning away from evil, and turning back to God.

Pax et Bonum.
 
I like what Neofight wrote.

The OP probably describes how many youth feel during Confirmation. The sacrament is still valid and graces are poured out. A bad attitude is like using an umbrella to ward off those graces.
 
So for the graces to be efficacious, all need to do is actively try not to sin and turn to God? So I have nothing to worry about?
 
You should bring the matter up with the Priest who is receiving you.
 
Neofight said:
Validity is not the question. Efficaciousness is. You, as a person who has reached the age of reason, could have been baptized in proper sacramental form, but it was for no good if you didn’t accepted the sacramental graces. The same is true for the infant baptized, who when they reach the age of reason reject God.

Long story short. Legalistically, you have been baptized, in form, and we “confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, so it is not to be repeated. Now, you need to complete the conversion which was the public promise you made by receiving the sacrament, by turning away from evil, and turning back to God.

Pax et Bonum.
Click to expand...
They should bring the matter up with the Priest.

Those who are baptized as infants are in a very different boat.

A baptism that is valid cannot be repeated but where doubt persists - a conditional baptism is done.
 
Bookcat said:
They should bring the matter up with the Priest.

Those who are baptized as infants are in a very different boat.
Click to expand...
Why.

The person I question agreed to be baptized… It wasn’t forced…

How are infants in a different boat?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Why.

The person I question agreed to be baptized… It wasn’t forced…

How are infants in a different boat?
Click to expand...
Because there is a question - and one that needs to be answered as the person goes forward.

Infants are prior to the age of reason. Their not wanting in an infant way (crying etc) is very different than an adult etc.

Adults etc must consent themselves - and not reject baptism etc.

The person in question was not an infant and he should discuss with the Priest what actually took place - the Church - must determine if it was valid or not. The person is responsible to tell the Priest what occurred and the Priest is then to make the determination or contact the Chancery.

I am not saying it was invalid (it can be simply some thought-feeling that happened to the person like a temptation and not something that was of their will etc)-or that it was valid - -the Church would make that judgment. And they need to know and can discuss with the person the details to make that determination.

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM
 
Bookcat said:
They should bring the matter up with the Priest.

Those who are baptized as infants are in a very different boat.

A baptism that is valid cannot be repeated but where doubt persists - a conditional baptism is done.
Click to expand...
Bookcat said:
Because there is a question - and one that needs to be answered as the person goes forward.

Infants are prior to the age of reason. Their not wanting in an infant way (crying etc) is very different than an adult etc.

Adults etc must consent themselves - and not reject baptism etc.

The person in question was not an infant and he should discuss with the Priest what actually took place - the Church - must determine if it was valid or not. The person is responsible to tell the Priest what occurred and the Priest is then to make the determination or contact the Chancery.

I am not saying it was invalid (it can be simply some thought-feeling that happened to the person like a temptation and not something that was of their will etc)-or that it was valid - = the Church would make that judgment.

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the original post that would indicate invalidity. To suggest otherwise accomplishes nothing
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
There is nothing in the original post that would indicate invalidity. To suggest otherwise accomplishes nothing
Click to expand...
Again I did not “suggest” it was invalid. I said to bring the matter to the Church.

The Person is to present to the Priest the facts. It is not up to you or me to determine but up to the Church.

It is part of becoming a Catholic. The Church is to investigate the Baptism and part of that is knowing this.

There is a real question that has been raised and it needs to be determined by the Church.

The note:
Milestone said:
However, while I was submerged, I remember thinking to myself, “This is stupid, I don’t want to do this,” feeling like I really meant it. I don’t know why I thought this, as I had been earnestly looking foward to it on my way there, and I was the one that suggested I be baptized.
Click to expand...
Could this have been a kind of passing thought that was not willed? Sure. Odd thoughts can happen - go through ones head without the will being involved.

But it should be brought to the Church. The Church needs to know this and judge what to do nor not do here.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
There is nothing in the original post that would indicate invalidity. To suggest otherwise accomplishes nothing
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. One must actually desire baptism - if it is possible for him to desire it - in order for it to be valid.
 
e_c said:
Yes, there is. One must actually desire baptism - if it is possible for him to desire it - in order for it to be valid.
Click to expand...
He desired it when he agreed to do it. Passing thoughts when it is getting done is incidental.
People, this is how scrupulocity is born…
 
Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

[The bold part deals with validity, not merely liceity or efficacy.]

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

Also see St. Thomas:

newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7

The question of “how much one needs to intend to be baptized” does not need to be discussed here, and especially not the particular’s of the OP’s case… It is a dialogue for the OP and whoever is receiving the OP.

From a glance, it seems a conditional baptism is a good idea. But we don’t want to act on “quick glances” with these things.
 
The person intended baptism.

This is getting ridiculous.

And irresponsible.

The op can certainly ask a priest about anything. Amateur cannon lawyers on the Internet is not a helpful thing for the op. I only hope when father so and so rolls his eyes and dismisses such a worry that it will be enough for the op. And those voices planting the seeds of doubt will not be watered by previous posts.

Anyone involved in RCIA knows that passing thoughts are present in almost 100 percent of people getting baptized.🤷
 
Bookcat said:
The person is simply to bring the matter to the Church - as he is supposed to do ANYWAY.

The Priest needs to know what went on…and then go from there.
Click to expand...
Does this extend to the sacrament of marriage too? Wedding day jitters? Or any sacrament really. The retirement to agree to the baptism was met. Free will was excercised. Had someone run up the young man and squirted him with a squirt gun against his will while screaming the names of the trinity in Swahili then we could question it. But it was the free will of the candidate to present himself for baptism and he went through with it without protest. This is the oddest position I’ve seen on the boards.

This is silly.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
This is silly.
Click to expand...
No it is not silly. Far from it.

The person is to present these aspects concerning the baptism in question to the Church.

The Church will determine what it do or not to do in their case.

This is part of becoming a Catholic if one has already been baptized.
 
Bookcat said:
No it is not silly. Far from it.

The person is to present these aspects concerning the baptism in question to the Church.

The Church will determine what it do or not to do in their case.

This is part of becoming a Catholic if one has already been baptized.
Click to expand...
When you say the " church". Who do you mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top