Validity of Catholic baptism to evangelicals

[victrolatim]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

 

[Fauken]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

I can think of two reasons why a Catholic baptism may be considered invalid by Evangelical standards:

1. The baptism was performed on an infant. Since baptism is seen as a declaration of faith by a person at (or above) the age of reason, it is invalid.
2. The baptism was not done by full immersion. Depending on the church, they may accept any form of water baptism, but many are firm that full immersion is the only acceptable method.

 

[SyCarl]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

This is most likely a congregation that practices believer’s baptism. They do not accept infant baptism whether it is Catholic, Presbyterian or any other church that baptizes infants. Infants can’t confess their faith so they cannot be baptized.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

No it’s not really the same the other way around, but it’s not so much a doctrinal thing as a practicality.

Evangelicals vary wildly, but in the flavor I grew up in, baptism was seen as a public testament of being born again or accepting Jesus as your Savior.

So for many who were baptized as infants, they wanted to participate in this public testimony. Not so much because they thought their baptism as a child was invalid , but more because they wanted to demonstrate their new life change.

Other more fundamentalist may see infant baptism as invalid and Re baptize people as would some baptists probably.

Even then though, a lot of these evangelical churches don’t even view baptism as necessary for salvation so it’s not a big deal to them all the time.

 

[exnihilo]

As others point out the issue of supposedly not having required faith (infant baptism) and invalid form (not being immersed) might be the issue in this particular case. But it could also be that they don’t consider a Catholic priest to be a valid minister.

As I understand in at least some Reformed or Presbyterian churches they teach that a valid minister must perform the baptism. This of course contrasts with Catholic teaching that anyone can baptize, though the normal minister of the sacrmamet is a clergyman. So for such believers if a priest is not a valid minister, which would be a complex issue but boils down to their view that Catholicism is false and illegitimate, then the baptism was not valid. If you read some recent documents between the Catholic Church and Reformed and Presbyterian on baptism it discusses this view.

I should point out that some of those churches now formally accept Catholic priests and deacons as valid ministers.

 

[Glomung]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

Whether the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox) deems a baptism to be valid or not depends on the Protestant denomination. If they have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. Lutherans) then the baptism is valid. If they do not, like the vast majority of Evangelical and fundie groups, then the baptism is not valid, it was merely a Chrismation.

In her case, her “re-baptism” is pure nonsense.

 

[Peter_J]

I have a friend who a few years back left the Catholic Church and joined one of those evangelical mega churches. While visiting the other day, I noticed that she had displayed in her parlor a “Certificate of Re-Baptism” from said church. I have never seen such a thing. I know in the Catholic Church baptism in a protestant denomination is considered a valid baptism, is it not the same the other way around?

There are actually many cases where A recognizes B but B doesn’t recognize A. You could find many discussions on this forum about, for example, the fact that Anglicans recognize Catholic orders but not vice versa, or that Catholics recognize Orthodox orders but not vice versa.

 

[theropod]

Whether the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox) deems a baptism to be valid or not depends on the Protestant denomination. If they have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. Lutherans) then the baptism is valid. If they do not, like the vast majority of Evangelical and fundie groups, then the baptism is not valid, it was merely a Chrismation.

In her case, her “re-baptism” is pure nonsense.

This is not true. Catholics accept almost any baptism as long as it was done with the Trinitarian formula.

 

[Horton]

Whether the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox) deems a baptism to be valid or not depends on the Protestant denomination. If they have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. Lutherans) then the baptism is valid. If they do not, like the vast majority of Evangelical and fundie groups, then the baptism is not valid, it was merely a Chrismation.

In her case, her “re-baptism” is pure nonsense.

The Catholic Church recognizes baptism from many mainline protestant churches. For the baptism to be valid it must be done with water, pour or immersion, and must be true Trinitarian.

Once one has a valid baptism, there is no need to ever “re-baptize”.

 

[Padres1969]

Whether the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox) deems a baptism to be valid or not depends on the Protestant denomination. If they have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. Lutherans) then the baptism is valid. If they do not, like the vast majority of Evangelical and fundie groups, then the baptism is not valid, it was merely a Chrismation.

In her case, her “re-baptism” is pure nonsense.

Others have already addressed that you are incorrect with regard to Catholic baptism (any trinitarian baptism with flowing water (or immersion) is valid from a Catholic POV.

But with regard to the “re-baptism” being nonsense, it may be in your opinion, but for many Evangelical Protestant denominations it’s anything but since they believe in “Believers Baptism.” That baptism is an outward sign or representation of the person being “born-again” as a believer in Christ. They do not accept or believe that an infant is capable of making that commitment (nor that anyone else can do it for them), and as such an infant baptism has no meaning. You may not believe that but it doesn’t make it nonsense from this lady’s denomination’s perspective.

 

[DaveBj]

I can think of two reasons why a Catholic baptism may be considered invalid by Evangelical standards:

1. The baptism was performed on an infant. Since baptism is seen as a declaration of faith by a person at (or above) the age of reason, it is invalid.
2. The baptism was not done by full immersion. Depending on the church, they may accept any form of water baptism, but many are firm that full immersion is the only acceptable method.

Having come from the Evangelical/Pentecostal culture, I would say that this pretty well covers the reasons why an Evangelical Church would baptize a convert from Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. On the other hand, if I (Lutheran baptism at age one that I never knew about, “believer’s baptism” by immersion in the Church of God after my conversion) were to leave Catholicism bigyikes and return to a Pentecostal or Baptist congregation, they would not rebaptize me.

 

[Peter_J]

Others have already addressed that you are incorrect with regard to Catholic baptism (any trinitarian baptism with flowing water (or immersion) is valid from a Catholic POV.

But with regard to the “re-baptism” being nonsense, it may be in your opinion, but for many Evangelical Protestant denominations it’s anything but since they believe in “Believers Baptism.” That baptism is an outward sign or representation of the person being “born-again” as a believer in Christ. They do not accept or believe that an infant is capable of making that commitment (nor that anyone else can do it for them), and as such an infant baptism has no meaning. You may not believe that but it doesn’t make it nonsense from this lady’s denomination’s perspective.

In that case, though, it wouldn’t really be a rebaptism. (Just like if an Episcopal priest comes into communion with Rome, he isn’t reordained, technically.)

 

[Georgia]

The independent Baptist church in which I grew up would accept baptism only from churches of like faith and practice. Any question would be resolved in the favor of re-baptism.

It was far from unusual for people to be baptized more than once. People would decide they “were not right with the Lord” at the time of the first baptism.

 

[Padres1969]

In that case, though, it wouldn’t really be a rebaptism. (Just like if an Episcopal priest comes into communion with Rome, he isn’t reordained, technically.)

Technically yes, but I suspect they’re acknowledging that the person in question has received something termed a baptism once in their life even if they see it as invalid for what they claim a baptism is really for.

Plus as mentioned above, not all denominations believe baptism is necessarily a one time thing that leaves an indelible mark on the soul even if the RCC and other groups do.

 

[TC3033]

I can think of two reasons why a Catholic baptism may be considered invalid by Evangelical standards:

1. The baptism was performed on an infant. Since baptism is seen as a declaration of faith by a person at (or above) the age of reason, it is invalid.
2. The baptism was not done by full immersion. Depending on the church, they may accept any form of water baptism, but many are firm that full immersion is the only acceptable method.

Agreed, and you could actually add a #3

1. Your friend decided they wanted a “believers baptism”.