Validly Baptised Christian on RCIA told that he needed a Conditional Baptism

[dcbrit2003]

I must be missing something. You not only have full knowledge of the event, but you also have witnesses and a DVD. What is the reason given for the doubt?

The reason given was that the Church where I got Baptised was not recognised. This is beside the point as the Ecumenical Directory ( part of Canon Law ) says that even if the Church is not recognised, this does not preclude the Baptism being valid (99b)

 

[dcbrit2003]

Also, having discussed the situation extensively at RCIA class on Monday all the leaders are behind my decision to ask for a proper investigation and that Canon Law be upheld

 

[Miserissima]

The reason given was that the Church where I got Baptised was not recognised. This is beside the point as the Ecumenical Directory ( part of Canon Law ) says that even if the Church is not recognised, this does not preclude the Baptism being valid (99b)

Waitasec. Let me see if I’m undemanding this correctly:

You’d rather wait on a determination of the “higher ups” for months, maybe years, but not schedule a twelve minute ceremony that would help you to move forward and chine home to the Church?

Which is more important to you? Having the Church recognize your DVDd baptism or receiving the Sacraments?

I’m not saying it should be an either/or choice. I just don’t understand why you won’t be conditionally baptized “just in case,” since it doesn’t supersede your original DVDd baptism.

You still have the option to be conditionally baptized while the question question is being adjudicated.

Get over yourself and come home. At this point, no one is stopping you but you. Don’t stand on principle to keep you from the Sacraments.

 

[Casilda]

FWIW,

I would love if folks like the OP would take over and administer the RCIA’s in the future. It would mean properly and better prepared new Catholics. What I was subjected to in just one diocese was shameful. The requirements, standards and materials were all over the place. I did not like the teaching staff issuing ‘threats’ at every meeting about getting something done in time or no baptism, confirmation, convalidation would be done. It drove people away, instead of lovingly guiding them INTO the church.

The issue here is something is WRONG in the way they are administering, okay some, RCIA’s. No one wants to listen to the problems some new potential converts are having. I guess it will have to make it all the way to Rome for an answer then.

 

[dcbrit2003]

FWIW,

I would love if folks like the OP would take over and administer the RCIA’s in the future. It would mean properly and better prepared new Catholics. What I was subjected to in just one diocese was shameful. The requirements, standards and materials were all over the place. I did not like the teaching staff issuing ‘threats’ at every meeting about getting something done in time or no baptism, confirmation, convalidation would be done. It drove people away, instead of lovingly guiding them INTO the church.

The issue here is something is WRONG in the way they are administering, okay some, RCIA’s. No one wants to listen to the problems some new potential converts are having. I guess it will have to make it all the way to Rome for an answer then.

Casilda,

I am sorry you had a negative experience with RCIA. Actually, I cannot report the same with the exception of this issue. My RCIA leaders are both loving and kind. What clearly has gone wrong here is there has not been time to do a full investigation of a Baptism performed in a Church that is your typical ( from a Roman Catholic perspective ) Protestant Church, such as the Anglicans, Baptists and Methodists. The forms for reception into the Catholic Church were filled out and signed two weeks before Easter Sunday with the requirement for Conditional Baptism communicated to me 4 days later. No one had asked for a copy of my Baptism on DVD and no one talked to the Elders of the Community Church

Clearly, people who were Baptised outside of these mainline Protestant Churches seeking to become Catholics are few and far between in my Diocese, yet this potential issue should of been picked up at the start ( something pointed out by the Chancellor of the Diocese in my original phone conversation with him ) and not left to the assumption that someone would be happy to take part in something because of a doubt about the validity of their original Baptism, without a serious and substantive issue arising from a full investigation ( such as, for example a rejection of the Nicean Creed - which the Community Church in question sees as an accurate statement of what they beleive ). There needs to be better training of both priests and RCIA Course leaders in this regard

Mark

 

[FrDavid96]

FWIW,

I would love if folks like the OP would take over and administer the RCIA’s in the future. It would mean properly and better prepared new Catholics. What I was subjected to in just one diocese was shameful. The requirements, standards and materials were all over the place. I did not like the teaching staff issuing ‘threats’ at every meeting about getting something done in time or no baptism, confirmation, convalidation would be done. It drove people away, instead of lovingly guiding them INTO the church.

The issue here is something is WRONG in the way they are administering, okay some, RCIA’s. No one wants to listen to the problems some new potential converts are having. I guess it will have to make it all the way to Rome for an answer then.

By what right or what standard do you consider yourself qualified to say that the bishop of the diocese is “WRONG”?

Do you know something he doesn’t know? Do you have a better understanding of canon law than the bishop has? Do you understand sacramental theology better than the bishop?

The bishop himself has determined that even he is not sure about the situation and has referred the matter to the Holy See.

What makes you qualified to judge the bishop?

 

[FrDavid96]

Some charity needs to be shown for the bishop here.

The man is obviously in a difficult situation because bishops don’t just refer matters to the Holy See casually.

After several reminders that the Holy See is now being consulted, when people continue to post that the bishop is in the “WRONG”, someone needs to be said.

 

[Casilda]

I am sorry Father, my point of contention is with timetables. It was wrong for them to notify the OP just prior to Baptism. In my diocese everything has to be in order before the start of Lent.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I most certainly agree that respect is due to the bishop. So the answer is simple: Ask the bishop why he believes that the baptism in invalid, along with the appropriate Canon Law reference.

 

[Tommy999]

I am following your situation with interest, dcbrit2003, and I hope it works out favorably in the end for everyone involved. By your posts, I see you as a person of strong principle, and I respect that. If you feel that by the bishop questioning the validity of your previous baptism that he is somehow invalidating your faith in Christ while you were at your previous church or that he is questioning your life as a Christian before you found Catholicism, I can understand your reluctance to have the conditional baptism, especially if there are Catholic Church rules that state that your previous baptism should be sufficient for acceptance into the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, I also agree with those who reasonably (in my view) argue that if joining the Catholic Church is more important to you than the questioning of your previous baptism, then you should seriously consider accepting the conditional baptism and move on in your relationship with God and the Catholic Church.

I really don’t have a dog in this fight but I hope one of the following occurs:

a) that the Church delves deeper into your situation and accepts your baptism as valid and sufficient for joining the Catholic Church.
b) that you decide that joining the Catholic Church and partaking of all it has to offer is worth the price of conditional baptism.

May God be with you as all of this gets sorted out.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I utterly disagree with others regarding the conditional baptism. There OP believes his baptism to be valid (have proper matter, form, and intent), has witnesses to attest to that fact, and has video evidence of the event. What more evidence can be possibly expected? IMHO, to accept conditional baptism is to reject one’s valid baptism and to make a mockery of the sacrament.

Personally, I would demand an explanation. These types of roadblocks should not be thrown in from of those wishing to become Catholic without explanation.

I recognize that there may be valid reasons for an issue; e.g., prior verifiable invalid baptisms by this particular Church. But these things must be discussed with the OP, and others anxious to join the Church, otherwise it just leaves those wishing to convert dangling in the wind, or will just chase people away.

 

[dcbrit2003]

I utterly disagree with others regarding the conditional baptism. There OP believes his baptism to be valid (have proper matter, form, and intent), has witnesses to attest to that fact, and has video evidence of the event. What more evidence can be possibly expected? IMHO, to accept conditional baptism is to reject one’s valid baptism and to make a mockery of the sacrament.

Personally, I would demand an explanation. These types of roadblocks should not be thrown in from of those wishing to become Catholic without explanation.

I recognize that there may be valid reasons for an issue; e.g., prior verifiable invalid baptisms by this particular Church. But these things must be discussed with the OP, and others anxious to join the Church, otherwise it just leaves those wishing to convert dangling in the wind, or will just chase people away.

Thank you for your support Tommy999 and TheWarriorMonk ( and everyone else!)

I think the most important question in all of this is the following: in this situation, what would Jesus do?

Mark

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Thank you for your support Tommy999 and TheWarriorMonk ( and everyone else!)

I think the most important question in all of this is the following: in this situation, what would Jesus do?

Mark

Funny thing you mentioned that; I was going to say the same thing. I couldn’t help but think about the Pharisees when reading this thread. It’s seems like this is all unnecessary legalism.

 

[Miserissima]

WWJD?

Scripture tells us what He did:
the only begotten Son of the Father
insisted that John Baptize Him.

 

[dcbrit2003]

WWJD?

Scripture tells us what He did:
the only begotten Son of the Father
insisted that John Baptize Him.

And likewise I requested Baptism at the Community Church and was Baptized by full immersion “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”

Your point being?

 

[Miserissima]

And likewise I requested Baptism at the Community Church and was Baptized by full immersion “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”

Your point being?

Two points.

The first is that matter, form, and intent, if not wholly compatible with the Church’s understanding of God, has been a great impediment for Mormon converts at one time. catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism

Early on, the Church considered Mormon baptisms valid but reversed this decision when the Church came to understand more fully that the Mormon notion of the Godhead was wholly incompatible with its own (although correct form, matter, and supposedly intent were present at the initial Mormon baptism).

Now, I’m not saying that your Baptism actually was lacking, but the theology behind it is unclear to the hierarchy in light of the precedent I just gave.

Second, the One who didn’t need to be baptized submitted. He was wholly pure and sinless, and would later send the Paraclete to Baptize with Fire as John predicted. Initially, John even refused to baptize Jesus. The Christ himself didn’t “need” to do it (there are many layers of understanding why He did, not all of which apply to us humans), but He did it.

Instead of implying the Church is legalistic in caring deeply for your immortal soul to “make sure,” I’d thank it. Rather than going on to receive the Eucharist unworthily, I’d be very, very grateful.

Who are we as individuals to stand on legalistic principle to say “no” to anything conditional which offers us Sacramental Grace through His Church, knowing the lengths that Jesus submitted to for us, especially in the case of His unnecessary Baptism?

Perhaps you posted it and I missed it, but suppose the Congregation comes back (after months) to say that your initial baptism was theologically unsound, although the proprieties were observed? Would you then do the twelve minute ceremony or just walk away?

 

[dcbrit2003]

Two points.

The first is that matter, form, and intent, if not wholly compatible with the Church’s understanding of God, has been a great impediment for Mormon converts at one time. catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism

Early on, the Church considered Mormon baptisms valid but reversed this decision when the Church came to understand more fully that the Mormon notion of the Godhead was wholly incompatible with its own (although correct form, matter, and supposedly intent were present at the initial Mormon baptism).

Now, I’m not saying that your Baptism actually was lacking, but the theology behind it is unclear to the hierarchy in light of the precedent I just gave.

Second, the One who didn’t need to be baptized submitted. He was wholly pure and sinless, and would later send the Paraclete to Baptize with Fire as John predicted. Initially, John even refused to baptize Jesus. The Christ himself didn’t “need” to do it (there are many layers of understanding why He did, not all of which apply to us humans), but He did it.

Instead of implying the Church is legalistic in caring deeply for your immortal soul to “make sure,” I’d thank it. Rather than going on to receive the Eucharist unworthily, I’d be very, very grateful.

Who are we as individuals to stand on legalistic principle to say “no” to anything conditional which offers us Sacramental Grace through His Church, knowing the lengths that Jesus submitted to for us, especially in the case of His unnecessary Baptism?

Perhaps you posted it and I missed it, but suppose the Congregation comes back (after months) to say that your initial baptism was theologically unsound, although the proprieties were observed? Would you then do the twelve minute ceremony or just walk away?

Hi,

Thanks for your post. I am well aware of the LDS issue, and I am also well aware that the Community Church’s doctrine falls entirely within mainstream Protestant Evangelicalism in matters such as it’s understanding of the Trinity and the foundational creeds of the Church such as the Nicene Creed. This should become clear to the Diocese when they write to the Community Church and the response received

As to your question about the response from the CDF, i can only make a decision about what to do based on their argument at the time.

Also, Sacramental Grace is afforded to me now, because i have been Baptised into the Church. I discovered the Eucharist and his presence within precisely because i had been Baptised and was now able to receive him in the Eucharist in an Anglican Church ( the Community Church only celebrates communion occasionally ) and i have been Anglican for the past 7 years slowly making my way spiritually to the Catholic side of the faith. Therefore, to participate in something that casts doubt on my ( very real ) relationship with Jesus i feel would be frankly disrespectful to all that he was done for me ( including miracle healings, etc ). There is no doubt about my membership of the Body of Christ through my Baptism in a non-denominational Community Church that falls within mainstream Evangelical Protestantism

Mark

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

WWJD?

Scripture tells us what He did:
the only begotten Son of the Father
insisted that John Baptize Him.

The OP is already baptized.

Did Jesus get baptized a second time that I wasn’t aware of?

 

[jmcrae]

We had an issue at our place…not similar, but just as troubling to the persons involved.
RCIA teams need to put all of this to bed by Dec. 31st, well before Easter.

I was thinking along the same lines - if there is no proof of Baptism by the end of the Period of Inquiry, then the person is to be treated as not baptized. If the Inquirer is claiming that a baptism took place, but there is no evidence of such, then a Conditional Baptism precedes the Rite of Welcome, which takes place not later than the First Sunday of Advent.

This last minute mess is what causes people to really become disheartened, angry, and disappointed in the RCIA process.

I agree. People need to be told what their situation is, and how they need to fix it, before the First Sunday of Advent, and with enough time to fix the situation before they come to the Rite of Acceptance or Rite of Welcome on the First Sunday of Advent.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for your support Tommy999 and TheWarriorMonk ( and everyone else!)

I think the most important question in all of this is the following: in this situation, what would Jesus do?

Mark

Jesus would obey the Bishop.

I can’t find the Bible references off the top of my head, but I know that Jesus told the disciples to be obedient to their religious leaders in all ways, and He paid the Temple taxes when He was commanded to do so, even though He wasn’t required to do so, being as He was a Rabbi of the Temple - and He was obedient to be baptized for the washing away of sins, even though He is the Divine Person of God, and in His humanity, He was created entirely without sin. And we are told by the Apostle Paul that Jesus was obedient in all things to the whole of the Law.

Not to mention that He submitted to be crucified for a crime that He did not commit, in obedience to the religious authorities.