I am protecting the sanctity of my Baptism by not agreeing to take part in a Conditional Baptism ceremony (unless there is a serious and substantive reason to doubt the validity of my original Baptism ). Conditional Baptisms are performed because there is a doubt about the validity of the Baptism of the individual in question. When I was Baptised ,I died to my old self and rose to a new life in Christ. I am a royal person, being transformed into his image and walking the path he has laid out for me. The irony is that my stance on this issue is entirely in tune with Canon Law.
One of the original intentions when I started this thread was to be able to help other people who are in a similar situation who come after me and come looking here for information on what happened to other people in their situation. In that light this will be my last post on this thread unless I have an update to post. I feel that I have fully explained myself and my reasoning.
God Bless
Mark
I have looked at your posts and your reasoning. Perhaps there are other issues that should come into play, or other ways of looking at the matter which may help your discernment process.
I can assure you that the Church is every bit as interested in protecting the sanctity of any valid baptism as you are; and in fact, they are more interested in protecting it. The Church has a 2000 year history of protecting the sanctity of baptism, as exemplified by issues addressed in the past concerning the necessity of baptism, and the fact that the Church does not consider some baptisms to be valid (for example, LDS baptisms, and yes, I know this specific does not apply to you). There is a list of denominations which the Church specifically says do not have valid baptisms. The fact that there is a list is not necessarily indicative that any denomination not on the list does have a valid baptism, however.
I have seen repeatedly that there are somewhere near 30,000 groups calling themselves Christian (and I don’t know who did the counting), and the reality is that there continue to be groups seemingly coming out of nowhere (that is, not an identifiable split of an existing denomination); there are also some splits which may be circumspect.
All of which goes to support the issue that Protestant denominations do not have clear line of authority. They find their authority in the Bible, and yet they contradict one another in exactly what the Bible says and what it means for us today here and now. Authority, such as the Catholic Church holds out, is rejected.
Becoming a Catholic in part means accepting the authority of the Church; and that authority includes authority over the validity of each and every sacrament. It is the Church’s authority, given by Christ to the Church and specifically to Peter, and handed down from him to other bishops of Rome, which gets rejected; individuals feel that they have the authority to decide issues - thus resulting in the multitude of denominations.
Let’s put this another way: one of the Pentecostal denominations is one the Church holds does not perform valid baptisms. I am aware that is not your background; but if we have an adult, who was baptized as an adult by that group approach the Church to join, and they took the same position as you do - that they were there, they know what happened, and they know it to be valid - there would be a significant problem with their entry under those conditions. It would be the Church, not they, who had the authority to determine the validity.
That would not be a challenge to what you felt, in your heart of hearts, to the bottom of your soles, in all purity and faithfulness. It would be the Church’s. It would not be about feelings; it would be about the reality of the Church’s decision that the Pentecostal baptism was not valid, period.
For all I know, your baptism may be found to be valid, and you would only need to make a professions of faith and be admitted to the rest of the sacraments.
The question, however, is this: suppose, for the moment, that the Church either says that the prior baptism is not valid, or they cannot make a determination from the facts presented. If they determine it is not valid, will you go forward to be baptized, or stand on your current belief in its validity and not submit to a baptism in the Church?
And if the Church says it cannot make a determination, and requests you be conditionally baptized, will you be willing to be conditionally baptized?
And if the Church says that it finds the prior baptism valid, what will be your response? An “I told you so”?
Will there be a spilling over to other areas the Church stands firm on (for the sake of identifying something, and an area where there is a great deal of dispute with the official stance, let’s take abortion and contraception). Are you willing to accept the Church’s position that in matters of faith and morals, it stands in the place of Christ, and that when it acts in faith and morals, it is acting in the place of, and with the authority granted by, Christ?
I ask this, because I get the impression from your posts that you seem to feel that you have the authority to make this call on your prior baptism. A conditional baptism does not in any way denigrate a prior valid baptism; that is why it is specifically conditional, a point you seem either to not understand, or not accept.
Please don’t misunderstand me; there are plenty of people self-identifying as Catholics, who feel their personal interpretation of faith and morals is superior to the Church’s. It is not solely a Protestant issue. Ultimately we need to submit our will to Christ’s. And the method He set up is through the Church He founded upon the Rock - Peter. Are you ready for that?
