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

[FrDavid96]

The OP is already baptized.
…

How do you know this when the bishop of the diocese has said that he is not sure if the attempted baptism was valid or not?

Do you have some information or insight or expertise that the diocesan bishop together with his own canonical experts does not have?

Does reading someone’s post in a forum make you more qualified than the diocesan bishop to determine if an attempted baptism was valid? If that’s true, then Catholics are sure wasting a lot of time and energy on having all those bishops shepherding dioceses when we can just keep it simple and replace them with internet experts.

Perhaps you think the bishop is wasting everyone’s time by consulting the Holy See instead of consulting you.

 

[FrDavid96]

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 payed 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.

I can find it for you:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,…” Matthew 16:18

No one on an internet forum should be pretending to have more expertise than the Holy See. And since the Holy See is being consulted in this matter, anyone claiming to be in a position to make a determination here is claiming to be more competent than the See of Peter.

And yes, I agree with the sentiment you posted. Obey the bishop’s decision, which is to consult the Holy See.

 

[jmcrae]

I can find it for you:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,…” Matthew 16:18

No one on an internet forum should be pretending to have more expertise than the Holy See. And since the Holy See is being consulted in this matter, anyone claiming to be in a position to make a determination here is claiming to be more competent than the See of Peter.

I am also reminded that Jesus promised to Peter, Whatsoever Peter (meaning the Holy See) makes law on earth, God will make law in Heaven; there is no distinction between God and the Catholic Church in Rome.

 

[DAML72]

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

OK, so again I ask, ‘Is it more important for you to be right, or to receive the Sacraments and enter the church?’ Clearly, it’s up to you, and I think that one day you will look back on this and see the hand of God - I think that there may be a lesson in humility going on here.

Good luck to you. I hope things get straightened out soon.

 

[DAML72]

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?

Just because the form and the words were used, doesn’t mean the proper intent was there. You may say so, and you may understand what the intent was, but the Bishop has to be certain. Can you understand that? Cut the man a break, there are like 30,000 + different Christian denominations now. If your church is not on the list, then how are they to know, without an extensive investigation, whether or not the intent was valid. (Not YOUR intent - the intent of the pastor).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

How do you know this when the bishop of the diocese has said that he is not sure if the attempted baptism was valid or not?

With all due respect father, the information we have in front of us points to a valid baptism, and the bishop’s office does not appear to have given any reason for questioning the baptism. Personally, I would demand an explanation (but that’s just me). I believe that a person approaching the faith should not have last-minute roadblocks thrown up in front of him with no valid explanation that keep him from joining the faith. In fact, this is the type of action, IMHO, that the current Pope is properly trying to avoid.

It should also be noted that I have previously mentioned that there could be reasons for the baptism being questioned. However, the person approaching the faith is absolutely due a valid explanation for this. It’s common courtesy, and most certainly due to someone wishing to join the faith.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Jesus would obey the Bishop.

I would be careful with that statement. The Bishops of the day were the Apostles, who obeyed Jesus, not the other way around.

 

[Elizium23]

With all due respect, TheWarriorMonk, we are anonymous posters on an Internet forum given a small slice of information by one person. Our information is secondhand, in text format, and all from the POV of the OP. We don’t even know which ecclesial community performed the alleged baptism for the OP, he simply says it is a “Community Church”.

WE do not have as much information or authority as the bishop and the chancery office have. WE have no basis for deciding that it was valid, or not. IMHO, if the bishop decided that the validity was doubtful enough to appeal to the Holy See for a final determination, then that is good enough for me to agree and also doubt the validity.

 

[Miserissima]

If there’s something wrong with the how a Sacrament is administered within the Church on earth, we can trust God to practice economy in our particular judgments.

However, to not cooperate with the Holy See now (types of ignorance notwithstanding), is only to presume on God’s grace later (which may be sinful).

When you say Anglican, do you mean Anglican Use? Or the Anglican church? Because I sincerely doubt the validity of their Eucharist (con- vs. tran- substantiation).

 

[FrDavid96]

With all due respect father, the information we have in front of us points to a valid baptism,

No. The information we have here points to the fact that the bishop does not know. You have no business saying that you are more qualified than the bishop; and yet, that’s exactly what you are doing when you say that it “points to a valid baptism.”

and the bishop’s office does not appear to have given any reason for questioning the baptism.

That’s irrelevant. The fact that you do not know the bishop’s reason does not justify your repeated claims that you know better than he does.

Personally, I would demand an explanation (but that’s just me).

Fine. If you’re ever in a similar situation and you want the bishop to explain his reason, I will be the first one to support you in saying that he should give you an explanation.

I believe that a person approaching the faith should not have last-minute roadblocks thrown up in front of him with no valid explanation that keep him from joining the faith.

Since you do not know the reason, you are completely out of line for saying that no valid reason has been given. Frankly, the bishop’s response “I am consulting the Holy See” is an absolutely, perfectly valid reason.

In fact, this is the type of action, IMHO, that the current Pope is properly trying to avoid.

Again, wrong. The Holy Father is not trying to avoid bishops who have questions consulting the Holy See before they make final decisions on matters of which the bishop himself is unsure.
The Holy Father is perfectly capable of explaining his own actions and motivations, and unless such an explanation actually comes from him, we should all simply ignore such speculation.

It should also be noted that I have previously mentioned that there could be reasons for the baptism being questioned. However, the person approaching the faith is absolutely due a valid explanation for this. It’s common courtesy, and most certainly due to someone wishing to join the faith.

The fact is that you’ve repeatedly posted that the “the baptism was valid” and you’ve done so several times after it was revealed that the bishop is unsure and is consulting the Holy See makes it clear to anyone reading your posts that you still think you know better than the bishop. That can be seen in this post:

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.

I think we can be fairly confident that once the Holy See has advised the bishop, the bishop will gladly share the reason for that decision with the OP. But since that has not yet happened, no explanation is even possible at this point.

 

[FrDavid96]

If there’s something wrong with the how a Sacrament is administered within the Church on earth, we can trust God to practice economy in our particular judgments.

However, to not cooperate with the Holy See now (types of ignorance notwithstanding), is only to presume on God’s grace later (which may be sinful).

Exactly. And it’s not a good start for a new Catholic.

When you say Anglican, do you mean Anglican Use? Or the Anglican church? Because I sincerely doubt the validity of their Eucharist (con- vs. tran- substantiation).

Not just doubt, but certainty. Their attempts at ordination are “absolutely null and utterly void” (which is exactly how the Church defines it), so no ordination means no Eucharist, without any doubt.

Anglican-use Catholic Masses are absolutely valid, of course. Likewise, no doubt.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

If you want the Lutheran perspective, it would be to accept the Bishops loving and pastoral request to have a conditional Baptism.

Move forward with the conditional Baptism - not for your sake, but for the sake of the Bishop : let his mind rest, knowing that you are indeed marked for Christ.

Our poor pastors have a lot to worry about, and I think it would be a loving gesture to submit to his request so that there is nothing else for him to fret over.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You have no business saying that you are more qualified than the bishop; and yet, that’s exactly what you are doing when you say that it “points to a valid baptism.”

I have not stated that I am more qualified that a bishop, and with all due respect, I wish you would stop leveling such an accusation at me.

I am just stating that the OP has noted that he believes that the baptism was performed with proper matter, form, and intent, and has video evidence of the event. The OP has also noted that he has not been given any valid reason why the baptism is in question.

That’s irrelevant. The fact that you do not know the bishop’s reason does not justify your repeated claims that you know better than he does.

As noted earlier, I have not stated I know better than the bishop does. It is true that I am not privy to the bishop’s reason, and that is irrelevant. However, the OP is also not privy to the bishop’s reason.

Do you believe that someone approaching the faith, months after being in RCIA, should be left hanging out in the wind with no explanation? Do you believe that sends a good message to those approaching the faith, and a good message to those considering converting?

Since you do not know the reason, you are completely out of line for saying that no valid reason has been given. Frankly, the bishop’s response “I am consulting the Holy See” is an absolutely, perfectly valid reason.

Of course it is a valid reason, but what kind of message is it sending the OP? We already know, because the OP wouldn’t be posting here in the first place.

Your posts are directed at me and my opinions.

What about the OP? Do you think that people approaching the faith should be just let hanging in the wind with no explanation? Is that the type of message we wish to present to those approaching the faith?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If you want the Lutheran perspective, it would be to accept the Bishops loving and pastoral request to have a conditional Baptism.

Sorry, I utterly disagree (though the OP obviously is free to make his own choices).

The problem with this situation is that the OP believes he was validly baptized, and does not believe a second, conditional baptism is appropriate. How does one accept a conditional baptism when that person believes that second attempt at baptism is utterly invalid?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Exactly. And it’s not a good start for a new Catholic.

I do not read the OP as intended or wanting disobey the bishop or the Church. However, I do read the OP as being annoyed and confused, as he is being left in the dark with no valid explanation after faithfully spending his time and effort on becoming a Catholic.

Quite frankly, we should be proud of the OP. A lot of other people wouldn’t be so patient and forgiving, and would simply leave.

 

[pianistclare]

I thought your response made sense, Ben.
The reason why so few people want to be involved in leadership in RCIA is because of things like this that come up. It takes a lot of training, much study, and a very pastoral perspective to work with people who have all kinds of scenarios in their past, various marriage situations, and are coming from all kinds of denominations that may or may not be recognized.
As Fr. David said, there must be something here that is outside of the info we have.
The Bishop is the correct person to make a final ruling. We may thinking it’s tedious, aggravating, even unnecessary as some have continued to post.
But it’s a very serious matter. I can certainly understand the frustration of the OP.
On the other hand, I cannot for the life of me, understand why such a vehement response to a conditional Baptism.
Also, generally, these things are private. Between the sponsor, the candidate, and the Pastor. Since they saw fit to seek the ruling of the Bishop, I think I’d be content to leave it to him.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

On the other hand, I cannot for the life of me, understand why such a vehement response to a conditional Baptism.

The answer is simple. Many of us take our sacraments seriously.

Example: If the Church said that your marriage was invalid, and didn’t give a reason, would you simply say “Okay, cool, I’ll just get married again, because my marriage vows were meaningless!” Or would you defend your marriage vows? Radical sanation is there for a reason, due to the incredulous reaction by one, or both of the parties.

Naturally, this option isn’t available for baptism. The person receiving the baptism can’t be baptized if he utterly rejects the second attempt.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The problem with this situation is that the OP believes he was validly baptized, and does not believe a second, conditional baptism is appropriate. How does one accept a conditional baptism when that person believes that second attempt at baptism is utterly invalid?

I hope the OP has considered the possibility that the Holy See will agree with the pastor and bishop and may decide that a conditional baptism is warranted. No matter what the OP believes, ultimately it is not his decision. Perhaps the determination will come down that the original baptism was valid. But if that’s not the case, I hope there won’t be so much invested in this that it will cause a problem.

And for what it’s worth, I agree with those who said this should not have been a last-minute surprise. Depending on baptismal status, someone either goes through the Rite of Acceptance into the Order of Catechumens or the Rite of Welcome. Things should have been cleared up at that point.

 

[felsguy]

The answer is simple. Many of us take our sacraments seriously.

Example: If the Church said that your marriage was invalid, and didn’t give a reason, would you simply say “Okay, cool, I’ll just get married again, because my marriage vows were meaningless!” Or would you defend your marriage vows? Radical sanation is there for a reason, due to the incredulous reaction by one, or both of the parties.

Naturally, this option isn’t available for baptism. The person receiving the baptism can’t be baptized if he utterly rejects the second attempt.

Funny thing, as I was reading through your latest posts here (and right before I read the one above) I was thinking that I would give this very same example for the very opposite reason, as in “what if the Church said your marriage is not valid in the eyes of the Church and therefore needs to be convalidated? Would you say ‘well, I believe in the eyes of God it is valid so I absolutely refuse to have it convalidated’?” It strikes me as unreasonable. Granted though there have been some recent threads where an OP has said taken that very stance (and likewise has been taken to task for placing their personal opinion above an authoritative decision of the Church.)

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I hope the OP has considered the possibility that the Holy See will agree with the pastor and bishop and may decide that a conditional baptism is warranted. No matter what the OP believes, ultimately it is not his decision.

Actually it is. The OP is not Catholic. Hence my continued insistence that the Church should treat him charitably, and not leave him in the dark with no explanation. How would you feel if you approached an organization, did what they told you for months, they said you can’t join right now with no explanation given?

“A Church without charity does not exist.”