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

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.)

Well, I’ll just say I had a convalidation and leave it at that.

I will say though that the situation is different, in that the couple would not be left in the dark as to why their marriage is invalid.

 

[benjohnson]

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?

It would certainly be frustrating to have your prior life as a Christian put into doubt by being asked to have a conditional baptism. I certainly understand the emotion.

However, the Bishop has some information in his mind that is leading him to go the extra mile to make absolutely sure that that there is a Baptism there. I would say that we’d have to encourage our Christian friend to obey his Bishop.

As I understand it, a conditional Baptism doesn’t ‘invalidate’ a prior valid Baptism - it’s only a sacrament if there was no prior Baptism to begin with. Basically, there’s no harm in it if there was a prior Baptism - and everything to gain if theres wasn’t.

I’d also like to highlight the Bishops’s ‘risk’ all of this:

James 3:1 reminds us: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

In my opinion, we should to do everything we can to let our Shepard sleep soundly at night - as they really have a lot of us wayward sheep to worry about already.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It would certainly be frustrating to have your prior life as a Christian put into doubt by being asked to have a conditional baptism. I certainly understand the emotion.

Especially if that doubt is put forth with no explanation. Why should the OP receive a conditional baptism if no explanation as to the doubt is given?

Maybe I don’t understand conditional baptism. Is it common that the Church performs conditional baptisms with no explanation to the person receive said baptism? Especially when the person believes it would be invalid?

However, the Bishop has some information in his mind that is leading him to go the extra mile to make absolutely sure that that there is a Baptism there. I would say that we’d have to encourage our Christian friend to obey his Bishop.

I would encourage the Church to not leave the person wishing to join the Church in the dark.

As I understand it, a conditional Baptism doesn’t ‘invalidate’ a prior valid Baptism

I never stated nor implied that. I inquired as to whether a conditional baptism would even be valid, if it is done against the will of the of the person receiving the conditional baptism, and who believes it would be invalid.

I’d also like to highlight the Bishops’s ‘risk’ all of this:

James 3:1 reminds us: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

In my opinion, we should to do everything we can to let our Shepard sleep soundly at night - as they really have a lot of us wayward sheep to worry about already.

Shepard sleep soundly at night because of the warriors that protect them.

 

[felsguy]

Well, I’ll just say I had a convalidation and leave it at that.

I will say though that the situation is different, in that the couple would not be left in the dark as to why their marriage is invalid.

Goodness, please understand that my raising the issue of a convalidation was just meant to be a hypothetical question to illustrate the point about authoritative statements by legitimate authorities versus personal, albeit strongly held, opinions. In other words, just as it is the Church and not the individual who is the arbiter of the validity of a marriage, so it is as to the validity of a baptism.

I do strongly agree, this issue should have been raised much, much earlier in the RCIA process and can understand the OP’s disappoint that it was sprung on him at the last moment.

I agree with you that it is always the better thing that the reason for such decisions be given to the parties involved (although I remember my theology professor of many years ago drilling into us that legitimate authority is not obligated to do so.) However in his very first post the OP states that he was given the reason, namely “because there was a doubt about the validity of my Baptism” and then goes on at length to argue that he knows that it most certainly was valid in the eyes of the Church, even to the point of citing Canon Law. I would venture that the old saw about being one’s own physician might also apply to being one’s own canon lawyer

 

[benjohnson]

I inquired as to whether a conditional baptism would even be valid, if it is done against the will of the of the person receiving the conditional baptism, and who believes it would be invalid.

If I remember correctly, all Baptisms require intent - so a uniting participant would not be Baptized.
…
Forgive me if I belabor my small point:

My intent wasn’t to argue about the necessity of the Conditional Baptism, only to remark that the Bishop has his reasons (perhaps even incorrect reasons) for this request and so we should give good council for our Christian friend to obey this (possibly) reasonable request.

You very well could be correct, in that this exercise isn’t even remotely necessary. But I would say that even If our Bishop is wrong - I think we should cheerfully obey as long as the Bishop’s instructions are not contrary to Christ.

 

[FrDavid96]

If I remember correctly, all Baptisms require intent - so a uniting participant would not be Baptized.
…
Forgive me if I belabor my small point:

My intent wasn’t to argue about the necessity of the Conditional Baptism, only to remark that the Bishop has his reasons (perhaps even incorrect reasons) for this request and so we should give good council for our Christian friend to obey this (possibly) reasonable request.

You very well could be correct, in that this exercise isn’t even remotely necessary. But I would say that even If our Bishop is wrong - I think we should cheerfully obey as long as the Bishop’s instructions are not contrary to Christ.

Ben,
While I agree with your sentiment, it’s not just about obedience as such.

It’s about realizing that the bishop is actually an expert in his field, and he has experts advising him.

Too many Catholics think they understand canon law and sacramental theology because they know how to do a google search and can read a wiki article.

The bishop has actually been educated in this sort of thing. He’s had years of experience. He has the very best canonists in his diocese advising him. In short, he knows what he’s doing.

Comments posted by people on the internet, people who have no real grasp of what they’re writing about, and scant little information in the way of facts, advising people to disregard or mistrust the pastoral decisions of the ones who are actually pastors (whether of a diocese or a parish) and who actually do know the facts, causes no end of trouble for pastors today. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that the bishop’s efforts to get this right have been hampered by posters here reinforcing the OP’s notion that he knows better than the bishop what constitutes a valid baptism. I know because I’ve been there.

I shuddered when I read the OP’s letter in post #19.

The comments posted here helped to reinforce that letter, essentially telling the Chancellor that he does not understand canon law while the OP does understand it. I’ve been in that kind of situation myself and I can assure you that when comments like the ones I’ve read here either cause or reinforce a Catholic (or future Catholic) person’s notion that he knows better than the actual pastors the result is disastrous.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m going to continue to hammer this point home: The OP is not Catholic.

Simple common sense dictates that a non-Catholic is not going to understand all of the nuances of Catholicism, Canon Law, etc. (in fact, most Catholics don’t). Simple common sense also dictates that reputed major issues such as this should be explained to the person wishing to become Catholic. The result of not doing so results in things like Post #19.

I don’t see a lot of charity towards the OP, but rather criticism. What message exactly are we trying to send the OP, and others like him? To shut up, obey the Church, and it’s too damn bad if he doesn’t get an explanation and doesn’t like it?

Evangelism at its finest…

 

[dcbrit2003]

Ben,
While I agree with your sentiment, it’s not just about obedience as such.

It’s about realizing that the bishop is actually an expert in his field, and he has experts advising him.

Too many Catholics think they understand canon law and sacramental theology because they know how to do a google search and can read a wiki article.

The bishop has actually been educated in this sort of thing. He’s had years of experience. He has the very best canonists in his diocese advising him. In short, he knows what he’s doing.

Comments posted by people on the internet, people who have no real grasp of what they’re writing about, and scant little information in the way of facts, advising people to disregard or mistrust the pastoral decisions of the ones who are actually pastors (whether of a diocese or a parish) and who actually do know the facts, causes no end of trouble for pastors today. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that the bishop’s efforts to get this right have been hampered by posters here reinforcing the OP’s notion that he knows better than the bishop what constitutes a valid baptism. I know because I’ve been there.

I shuddered when I read the OP’s letter in post #19.

The comments posted here helped to reinforce that letter, essentially telling the Chancellor that he does not understand canon law while the OP does understand it. I’ve been in that kind of situation myself and I can assure you that when comments like the ones I’ve read here either cause or reinforce a Catholic (or future Catholic) person’s notion that he knows better than the actual pastors the result is disastrous.

Dear Fr David,

Thank you for your post. I do not understand how you have come to the opinion that I know more about what constitutes a valid Baptism than the Bishop. I am not that arrogant by a long shot. It appears you have misread my arguments.

Also, regarding post #19 I was simply putting my understanding of the situation and of Canon Law across. The e-mail in no way said or implied that I knew more or had a better understanding of Canon Law and/or Sacramental Theology than the Bishop or Chancellor of the Diocese. It seems you have read into the e-mail in post #19 more than what was actually there. It is interesting that I received a totally opposite reaction when I read out the very same e-mail to the leaders of my RCIA course. Ours is a very small RCIA course and so we have all had the opportunity to get to know one another as people and we feel comfortable with one another. Therefore, in the context of the discussion that followed regarding this whole situation, the e-mail in question was read out and both leaders felt strongly that what I had written was appropriate and that I was entitled to follow the process of asking for a full and proper investigation. They are completely behind me in this regard.

Your fear of a disasterous situation has already been born out with this Conditional Baptism request being sprung upon me at the last minute. I cannot tell you how hurt and angry I was when I found out that Conditional Baptisms are carried out when there is a doubt about the validity of the original Baptism. I hope you agree with me that 4 days is in no way enough time to conduct a proper investigation into my Baptism and the Community Church where I got Baptised and that the Diocese in question needs to look again at it’s RCIA process to ensure that Parish Priests and RCIA Course leaders are better trained to pickup these potential issues at the beginning of the course

With deepest respect,

Mark

 

[dcbrit2003]

Correction: I do not understand how you have come to the opinion that I think I know more

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

In my humble, respectful opinion, emotions are in play. Religious leaders do not like statements/actions/etc. that can be perceived as disrespect to their leaders. It is no different from the reaction of a child perceiving something disrespectful toward their parent. Or in my case, and other martial artists like me, toward their teachers. Emotions can blind our thoughts, and we end up hearing what we wish to hear, rather than what was said.

I would just leave it alone, continue on with your journey, and not bother with others. Roadblocks are not fun, but keep you eye on the goal. IMHO, you should respectfully describe your situation to the bishop’s office. I look at it as a duty, since your comments may result in problems being brought to the bishop’s attention, resulting in changes that will make other’s journeys much easier. Turn a bad thing into a good thing.

 

[benjohnson]

To shut up, obey the Church, and it’s too damn bad if he doesn’t get an explanation and doesn’t like it?

Evangelism at its finest…

I’ll certainly admit that my presentation probably isn’t as gentle as it should be.

But to be frank, the Church can break your heart now and then.

The Lutheran response to this is “Of course the church will let you down! The devil attacks those that are with God - to pry them away from Him!”

In the ideal situation- the original poster would have been give time to prepare and time to explore all the options. But sadly, that’s didn’t happen.

I don’t think anybody is minimizing the damage and the hurt, but that what he’s about to gain in full communion with a valid Church (where the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered) is almost infinitely better for an everlasting life with God than this temporary problem.

I think he’s been given good council - to ignore the difficulties and move forward toward the Cross.

 

[skeyes]

I only have one quick comment. I was conditionally Baptized when I entered the Church 25 years ago. I was baptized as a seven year old in the Baptist community. I personally doubt whether the intention of my dad, a Baptist preacher, coincided with what the Church intends during Baptism. My dad saw Baptism as obedience to having accepted “Christ as my Savior”. My dad would have never said that Baptism was Salvific. So, in my limited understanding, I agreed to be conditionally Baptized. I am glad I was conditionally Baptized because I do not believe the intent was there by the administrator of the Baptism, my dad.

Just my 2 cents.

Stan

 

[SyroMalankara]

Correction: I do not understand how you have come to the opinion that I think I know more

Seems like a set up to bash the bishop, the Church in general (too legalistic, etc), and leave the Original Poster as a victim. Why haven’t you posted the link to the denomination that “baptised” you, or even given it’s full name and name of the pastor?

You think these particular Catholics are “legalistic”, but some others wouldn’t even ask you if you were ever possibly baptised by some sect and just baptise you outright.

 

[FrDavid96]

Correction: I do not understand how you have come to the opinion that I think I know more

I re-read the letter to the bishop that you posted in post #19

You wrote this (about 2/3 into the letter)

This obviously makes sense and ( to me ) invalidates that reason given to me by the RCIA course leader ( having received this judgement from the Diocese ) that I would need a Conditional Baptism because the Church where I got Baptised was not recognised.

When you say that what “makes sense” to you “invalidates…the judgement from the Diocese” it’s hard interpret it any other way.

When someone tells a bishop that his own assessment of the situation invalidates the bishop’s decision, I can assure you that any bishop will interpret that as being told that the writer thinks he knows better than the bishop.

Frankly, how could anyone come to any other conclusion than that you think you know better than the bishop?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

IFrankly, how could anyone come to any other conclusion than that you think you know better than the bishop?

Well, I came to a different conclusion.

First, as stated earlier, the OP is not Catholic. It is unreasonable to assume that the OP has the same understanding, perspective, etc. as me, you, or any other Catholic that has any type of understanding of Canon Law, the Catechism, obedience, etc. It would also be improper to take a non-Catholic mindset and judge in the context of a Catholic mindset; the wrong conclusions will be drawn.

Second, the Divine Law requirements for baptism are exceeding simple, and the OP has absolutely no doubt that those requirements were met. Somebody months later has some doubt, and now questions the validity. If I was a non-Catholic in this situation, was 100% certain that I met the requirements, and was provided no valid reason as to why, I might very well say the same thing he did. He does not view obedience in the same manner as you, nor should he be expected to: He’s not Catholic.

(note regarding the doubt of the baptism: I can’t tell where that doubt originate, nor do I have any idea if the bishop’s office did a thorough investigation or even knows why it would be invalid. I have no idea regarding such procedures, or even if the bishop can simply “pass the buck” to Rome if he is to busy).

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I came to a different conclusion.

First, as stated earlier, the OP is not Catholic. It is unreasonable to assume that the OP has the same understanding, perspective, etc. as me, you, or any other Catholic that has any type of understanding of Canon Law, the Catechism, obedience, etc. It would also be improper to take a non-Catholic mindset and judge in the context of a Catholic mindset; the wrong conclusions will be drawn.

Second, the Divine Law requirements for baptism are exceeding simple, and the OP has absolutely no doubt that those requirements were met. Somebody months later has some doubt, and now questions the validity. If I was a non-Catholic in this situation, was 100% certain that I met the requirements, and was provided no valid reason as to why, I might very well say the same thing he did. He does not view obedience in the same manner as you, nor should he be expected to: He’s not Catholic.

(note regarding the doubt of the baptism: I can’t tell where that doubt originate, nor do I have any idea if the bishop’s office did a thorough investigation or even knows why it would be invalid. I have no idea regarding such procedures, or even if the bishop can simply “pass the buck” to Rome if he is too busy.

Just like you would call on the CEO of your company to take care of your late paperwork if you were too busy. Right.

No - if the Bishop is calling Rome it’s because there is a serious issue at stake with world wide consequences.​

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Just like you would call on the CEO of your company to take care of your late paperwork if you were too busy. Right.

No - if the Bishop is calling Rome it’s because there is a serious issue at stake with world wide consequences.​

Why do you expect a non-Catholic to understand all this? And on the contrary, is it reasonable for me to assume that you completely understand all the nuances of the OP’s religion?

I’m going to a major seminar (sports related) in a few months where a Protestant “bishop” will also be present. What are his duties? How should I address him?..I have no friggin’ idea! Why should I? I am not of his religion, nor understand the nuances of it.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

BTW, I would be very interested in knowing why this case would need to go to Rome; I can’t even remotely imagine why. So if the OP could post this information or PM when the reason is discovered and what the result, I would be very interested.

 

[dcbrit2003]

BTW, I would be very interested in knowing why this case would need to go to Rome; I can’t even remotely imagine why. So if the OP could post this information or PM when the reason is discovered and what the result, I would be very interested.

I am writing a letter, which includes two copies of my Baptism of my DVD ( in case one of the DVD-R discs is defective), to the Bishop to ask that very same thing and to ( potentially ) draw his attention to this whole issue.

Having watched the footage of my Baptism again there were three Elders of the Community Church involved. One presiding over the service, one Baptising and one leading prayers after my Testimony. In my Testimony I clearly have the understanding that I am being Baptised into the Church and that I will be receiving my inheritance as an adopted child of God. This is also reflected in the Bible passage read out by the Elder would was leading prayers right before I was Baptised.

Frankly, I would be very interested in why any of this has to be raised with the Holy See. The Community Church baptises firmly within the Protestant Evengelical tradition ( leaning more to a Catholic understanding of Baptism if you ask me ), has an orthodox view of the Trinity and accepts the Nicene Creed as an accurate statement of what it believes. If my Baptism is not a valid Baptism within a non-Catholic ecclesial community I don’t know what is

Somehow, I believe the fact that I have my Baptism on DVD has maybe not been taken on board by the Diocese despite informing the Chancellor of the Diocese in my original phone conversation with him. You would think that they would be interested in viewing the actual Baptism and service if they felt this was a controversial enough issue to consult the Holy See yet no request has been made to me to provide a copy on DVD. Odd, isn’t it?

If I am told the Diocese’s full reasoning as to why this needs to be referred to Rome I will post here, certainly

Mark

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I like knowing about all the “oddball” cases, simply because such examples do wonders in helping increasing the understanding of subject at hand.

I find it extraordinarily odd that they would not accept the DVD. Personally I would be showing up at the Bishop’s office demanding they accept it as evidence or give a reason why they refuse to accept it. But that’s me; I don’t expect others to do as I do.