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

[dcbrit2003]

Will be a decision for the Diocese.

Tis very important that one is validly baptized.

Actually, it looks like this decision is going to be for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to decide as the Chancellor of the Diocese has told me a few days ago that this is likely to be referred to them.

I wonder if the fact that I have unilaterally sent them copies of my Baptism on DVD will have any effect on this? It is a vital piece of evidence after all

Mark

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, it looks like this decision is going to be for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to decide as the Chancellor of the Diocese has told me a few days ago that this is likely to be referred to them.

I wonder if the fact that I have unilaterally sent them copies of my Baptism on DVD will have any effect on this? It is a vital piece of evidence after all

Mark

The CDF would certainly be competent!

 

[dcbrit2003]

The CDF would certainly be competent!

You betcha!

 

[Della]

Actually, it looks like this decision is going to be for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to decide as the Chancellor of the Diocese has told me a few days ago that this is likely to be referred to them.

I wonder if the fact that I have unilaterally sent them copies of my Baptism on DVD will have any effect on this? It is a vital piece of evidence after all

Mark

Not necessarily. What needs to be established is the validity of your former faith community to baptize as the Church intends baptism. This may involve what the community believed about baptism. It can be rather sticky to determine. This is why the bishop asked that you receive a conditional baptism, which would satisfy the requirement in case your baptism wasn’t valid. It’s no reflection on your former community. Those that baptize believing that it is only a symbol and not a sacrament truly don’t understand the difference.

Having belonged to such a community at one time I understand the dilemma your case presents. Fortunately for me, I’d been baptized as an infant in the Episcopal Church only to be “re” baptized in the Assemblies of God. I am not sure if my AoG baptism would have been accepted as valid, if it had been my only one. Even though the words used in the AoG were correct the intent wasn’t baptism, as the Church understands it, but merely as a witness of what was supposed to already have happened in my soul when I “accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.”

I don’t know if any of this helps you, but I thought I’d share it with you in case it might make some things a bit less mysterious for you. All the best and may you be able to enter full commuion with the Church very soon. You have my prayers, please say a prayer for me.

 

[dcbrit2003]

Not necessarily. What needs to be established is the validity of your former faith community to baptize as the Church intends baptism. This may involve what the community believed about baptism. It can be rather sticky to determine. This is why the bishop asked that you receive a conditional baptism, which would satisfy the requirement in case your baptism wasn’t valid. It’s no reflection on your former community. Those that baptize believing that it is only a symbol and not a sacrament truly don’t understand the difference.

Having belonged to such a community at one time I understand the dilemma your case presents. Fortunately for me, I’d been baptized as an infant in the Episcopal Church only to be “re” baptized in the Assemblies of God. I am not sure if my AoG baptism would have been accepted as valid, if it had been my only one. Even though the words used in the AoG were correct the intent wasn’t baptism, as the Church understands it, but merely as a witness of what was supposed to already have happened in my soul when I “accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.”

I don’t know if any of this helps you, but I thought I’d share it with you in case it might make some things a bit less mysterious for you. All the best and may you be able to enter full commuion with the Church very soon. You have my prayers, please say a prayer for me.

AoG is a recognised Denomination by the Catholic Church so your Baptism would of stood

P.s. The Chancellor did say that once he had written to the Community Church and received it’s response it was likely that this would be referred to the CDF. His tone was like it would be a foregone conclusion that this would be done

 

[Della]

AoG is a recognised Denomination by the Catholic Church so your Baptism would of stood

That’s nice to know. Thanks. :tiphat:

Is your former congregation recognized by the Church? Just curious not debating. If it is, I’m not sure why your baptism is being questioned. Only the bishop can answer that.

If it were me I’d go ahead with the conditional baptism simply because I’d want to get on with things, as it were. And I would tend to trust the bishop’s decision simply from obedience to him. Of course, bishops sometimes make errors in such matters, so you are perfectly within your rights to have it considered higher up. I pray that whatever the CDF’s ruling, if it comes to that, that you will find peace and fulfillment within the Church and a warm welcome home.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Update:

I have just returned from posting my Next Day Guaranteed Delivery letters to the Bishop and Chancellor. I will post both letters, with names and any identifying information removed, with the exception of the name of the collection of Churches that the Community Church is apostolic-ally affiliated to ( I have already mentioned that they are members of the Evangelical Alliance ).

newadvent.org/cathen/05641a.htm
An association of Protestants belonging to various denominations founded in 1846, whose object, as declared in a resolution passed at the first meeting, is “to enable Christians to realize in themselves and to exhibit to others that a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the fellowship of the Church” (Report of the Proceedings of the First General Conference). The points of belief, which the members accept as being the substance of the Gospel, are contained in a document adopted at the first conference and known as the Basis. They are nine in number:

The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture;
the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture;
the unity of the Godhead and the Trinity of Persons therein;
the utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall;
the Incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for sinners, and his mediatorial intercession and reign;
the justification of the sinner by faith alone;
the work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner;
the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked;
the Divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
"It being, however, distinctly declared that this brief summary is not to be regarded, in any formal or ecclesiastical sense, as a creed or confession, nor the adoption of it as involving an assumption of the right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood, but simply as an indication of the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Alliance. In this Alliance, it is also distinctly stated that no compromise of the views of any member, or sanction of those of others, on the points wherein they differ, is either required or expected; but that all are held free as before to maintain and advocate their religious convictions, with due forbearance and brotherly love. It is not contemplated that the Alliance should assume or aim at the character of a new ecclesiastical organization, claiming and exercising the functions of a Christian Church. Its simple and comprehensive object, it is strongly felt, may be successfully promoted without interfering with, or disturbing the order of, any branch of the Christian Church to which its members may respectively belong.
The Alliance thus lays claim to no doctrinal or legislative authority. In a pamphlet issued by the society itself this feature is thus explained: “Then it is an Alliance—not a union of Church organizations, much less an attempt to secure an outward uniformity—but the members of the Alliance are allies: they belong to different ecclesiastical bodies—yet all of the One Church. They are of different nations as well as of many denominations—yet all holding the Head, Christ Jesus. Unum corpus sumus in Christo. We are one body in Christ—banded together for common purposes, and to manifest the real unity which underlies our great variety. We are all free to hold our own views in regard to subsidiary matters, but all adhere to the cardinal principles of the Alliance as set forth in its Basis.”

 

[Miserissima]

Mark,

Thank you. Where before I may have sounded glib, I meant only to be succinct. Let’s just say it’s been “laid on my heart.”

Mary, as the last child of the Old Covenant, would never have said “Yes” to a virgin birth, lest she go through the test that “waste[d] away her thigh” in the temple. But she still gave her Fiat.

You’re not called to ascribe to Marian Doctrine, you’re “only” called to a similar Fiat.

You’re not called to force the charity of the church administration to hold to any law or precept. You’re called to your Fiat. The precept is secondary, which will (after CDF Review must certainly be extended to those who follow your example). The precept can and will be fulfilled, with or without you as the catalyst.

Break open the word: the one with more books. You’ll get your message (not bibliomancy). Cling to the traditions of men only so far as to protect your soul in the grace you’ve been shown.

This doesn’t have to be either/or. This can be both/and. It’s your Fiat, Mark.

Let God hold the economy (oikonomia?) at the end. All Catholics are bound by canon law, so you become one or you’re not, just as you cannot let another here argue for you that you “aren’t [yet].”

Just do your part that you said you’d do nine days before your reception. Stop with the canon law, go with the faith. The faith part will guide the canon law without your insistence. Faith means it’ll take care of itself because you brought it to the CDF, not that that should delay your Reception and your Fiat.

The faith that will make you whole will satisfiy the long-term. You take care of what’s in your power now.

Rose

 

[dcbrit2003]

It’s my Fiat? I would never be seen dead in a Fiat! I drive a BMW!!

J/k

What do you mean by Fiat?

 

[Miserissima]

It’s my Fiat? I would never be seen dead in a Fiat! I drive a BMW!!

J/k

What do you mean by Fiat?

Ha! Sometimes I feel like I drive a Yugo…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=825697

 

[mommamaree]

I have followed your thread with interest as it reminds me of some difficult questions I encountered during my own conversion. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant, but had no awareness of that fact. My parents divorced, my step dad adopted me and he and my mother raised me Baptist. I had a believer’s baptism at age 7, after being denied one for over a year, because the pastor said I was too young. I eloped with my Christian fiance, whom I met at the church in which I was raised. We were married by a Justice of the Peace, with no other witnesses, because our families opposed our marriage (they preferred cohabitation).

So fast forward nearly 20 years and we want to enter the Catholic Church, and I find out that I was baptized Catholic as an infant! At the first meeting with our priest, he said “so, you know you are not married, right?” Well, that was a shock. He said that he isn’t quite sure how to handle my case yet, but that there are a couple ways to proceed, but that I am most definitely considered Catholic already, and my marriage is therefore not valid. And because my legal husband was not Catholic, we had to request permission of our bishop for us to marry.

It was a crazy, stressful time. But our pastor and bishop walked us through everything, one step at a time. We did have to get married properly, in the Church with witnesses, and I confessed breaking the precept to abide by the marriage laws of the Church, even though through no fault of my own. Then we were both free to continue with all the other sacraments of initiation.

Who would have thought a woman who never knew she was Catholic could have broken a marriage law of the Church and therefore have an invalid marriage? How crazy!

But oh the grace! The transformation of my marriage is obvious. Now we have a truly sacramental marriage, and the difference is palpable.

With regard to your specific situation, I think it is very interesting that you are going through this now, considering the reading from Acts this past Sunday at Mass. It discussed how the apostles handled, according to their authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the situation of new converts to the faith who had not been properly baptized. Because the baptism wasn’t valid, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. The apostles sought to rectify that immediately, and once they had, the new converts were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Bishops have apostolic succession. I hope you will be at peace with whatever decision your bishop makes, or the CDF, if that is by whose authority the decision comes. This reading from Scripture shows us that we can trust and obey in these matters dealing with the sacraments, and that God will reward is with His presence when we do. God bless you in your journey home to the Catholic Church!

 

[jmcrae]

Miserissima, thank you for your very well thought out post. Just to talk about conscience a bit. I would argue that my conscience is formed more or less to what the Catholic Church believes ( I have some misgivings about the Marian shrines,etc and veneration of Mary - to me, she is the model disciple ). Certainly on all the issues on RCIA I agreed with everything, and found it spiritually enriching.

However, ALL Catholics are bound by Canon Law, and given the evidence here I do not believe that Canon Law has been followed correctly and as in the words of my RCIA Course leaders, I am entitled to ask for a proper investigation . This is now happening and I fully support it.

And how would a lay person know how to interpret Canon Law? You can’t just google it and say, “Here! See? I’m right!” because there are a thousand and one “notwithstanding” clauses in it. It’s an interconnected web of "if-then"s and “under the usual circumstances” - things that lay people simply don’t have the time to study. That is the realm of Bishops and Canon Lawyers.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s my Fiat? I would never be seen dead in a Fiat! I drive a BMW!!

J/k

What do you mean by Fiat?

Just as Mary said “Yes” (fiat in Latin) to God in a matter that was completely contrary to God’s law in pretty much every way (virgin birth = physically impossible, pregnancy outside the bond of marriage = morally insupportable) according to everything she could have known at the time, so also, it may be that you are being called to say “fiat” - Yes, to an impossible thing - in this instance.

 

[Tommy999]

Just as Mary said “Yes” (fiat in Latin) to God in a matter that was completely contrary to God’s law in pretty much every way (virgin birth = physically impossible, pregnancy outside the bond of marriage = morally insupportable) according to everything she could have known at the time, so also, it may be that you are being called to say “fiat” - Yes, to an impossible thing - in this instance.

While I agree with your reasoning, which is a great biblical example of submitting oneself to God, I sense there may be another element at play here, although only dcbrit03 can say for sure. I apologize if I am just reading my own feelings into this and it really isn’t a factor. I had previously added my two cents in post #51 earlier on this thread.

Many evangelicals (me included) came to know Christ as Lord and Savior in a very real, substanital, and life-changing way in our respective evangelical communions, including getting baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by a licensed clergyman of that denomination. In my case, I was baptized as a teenager in the Presbyterian Church, although I moved to AOG in my early 20’s.

Perhaps Dcbrit03 feels that by mandating conditional baptism, somehow the bishop is invalidating or delegitimizing his (dcbrit03’s) walk with Christ up until the time he chose Catholicism. If that is the case, I can understand his reluctance, although I could see myself submitting to the conditional baptism after talking it over with church leadership, provided I felt that the requirement was made in good faith and there was no prejudice involved in the decision. After all, there are probably a few Catholic leaders who disdain non-Catholic communions and their default reaction is to not extend charity to them just like there are some Protestant ministers who would not accept a Catholic convert into his church without requiring baptism first.

In the end, it was that same spiritual journey in Christ that he has been on that eventually led dcbrit03 to Catholicism, and I assume that he believes that his walk with God will only grow stronger and deeper as a Catholic or else he never would have made the switch. However, that doesn’t delegitimize what Christ did in his life beforehand.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Perhaps Dcbrit03 feels that by mandating conditional baptism, somehow the bishop is invalidating or delegitimizing his (dcbrit03’s) walk with Christ up until the time he chose Catholicism.

That’s exactly how I would feel if a valid reason was not provided to me.

 

[Della]

That’s exactly how I would feel if a valid reason was not provided to me.

But, and I say this in all gentleness, feelings don’t matter in determining the validity of baptism, nor does questioning the validity of someone’s baptism call into question their life in Christ up to that point. It’s a sacramental matter not a spiritual one. Many people who have received invalid baptisms will no doubt lead very good Christian lives and have a spiritual relationship with Christ believing that they have been validly baptized. For God can and does work outside of the sacraments. But to presume a valid baptism has taken place when one knows better is to commit the sin of presumption (not that the OP has done this). The Church is NOT questioning anyone’s relationship with Christ or their spiritual lives when asking to be assured that their non-Catholic baptism be validated. It is standard procedure to make sure all that is necessary for entry into full communion with the Church has been done, and that’s all.

 

[Tommy999]

Hi Della,
I understand where you are coming from and agree with your point of it being a sacramental matter whose ultimate decision is in the hands of the Church. As I previously mentioned, I would most likely submit and do the conditional baptism if it were me, but I also respect dcbrit03’s right to do what he is doing as a matter of principle.

I also hope you are aware that when someone makes a life-changing decision to admit they a sinner, to confess and repent of their sins, to believe in Jesus and believe that Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins, and that person decides to commit himself to follow and grow in Christ from that point on as a changed person and a committed Christian, there is more to it than just “feelings”. It is a significant life-changing event involving the spirit and the will of the person accepting Christ’s lordship in their life and it fundamentally transforms the person from the inside out as it did for me.

 

[Della]

Hi Della,
I understand where you are coming from and agree with your point of it being a sacramental matter whose ultimate decision is in the hands of the Church. As I previously mentioned, I would most likely submit and do the conditional baptism if it were me, but I also respect dcbrit03’s right to do what he is doing as a matter of principle.

Indeed, a fact I mentioned to him, as well. He’s within his rights to appeal the bishop’s decision, which he appears to be in the process of doing.

I also hope you are aware that when someone makes a life-changing decision to admit they a sinner, to confess and repent of their sins, to believe in Jesus and believe that Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins, and that person decides to commit himself to follow and grow in Christ from that point on as a changed person and a committed Christian, there is more to it than just “feelings”. It is a significant life-changing event involving the spirit and the will of the person accepting Christ’s lordship in their life and it fundamentally transforms the person from the inside out as it did for me.

The feelings I was referring to aren’t about anyone’s conversion or life in Christ, as I tried to emphasize, but seemingly failed to do. My point is simply that ensuring that a baptism is valid has nothing to do with anyone’s feeling about it. No one is making any decisions based on their feelings in this matter, nor should feelings have any bearing on determining the validity of one’s baptism.

All of us who follow Christ have conversion experiences throughout our lives. Some are quite dramatic, such St. Francis of Assisi had when he left behind his life of dissipation to follow the call of God to conversion and service to him and his fellow man. These types of conversions the Church calls “awakenings to faith” that are prompted by the Holy Spirit and not on one’s feelings. They’re a necessary part of our spiritual growth, but they have little to do with determining the validity of sacraments, which is what the discussion is about.

 

[dcbrit2003]

While I agree with your reasoning, which is a great biblical example of submitting oneself to God, I sense there may be another element at play here, although only dcbrit03 can say for sure. I apologize if I am just reading my own feelings into this and it really isn’t a factor. I had previously added my two cents in post #51 earlier on this thread.

Many evangelicals (me included) came to know Christ as Lord and Savior in a very real, substanital, and life-changing way in our respective evangelical communions, including getting baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by a licensed clergyman of that denomination. In my case, I was baptized as a teenager in the Presbyterian Church, although I moved to AOG in my early 20’s.

Perhaps Dcbrit03 feels that by mandating conditional baptism, somehow the bishop is invalidating or delegitimizing his (dcbrit03’s) walk with Christ up until the time he chose Catholicism. If that is the case, I can understand his reluctance, although I could see myself submitting to the conditional baptism after talking it over with church leadership, provided I felt that the requirement was made in good faith and there was no prejudice involved in the decision. After all, there are probably a few Catholic leaders who disdain non-Catholic communions and their default reaction is to not extend charity to them just like there are some Protestant ministers who would not accept a Catholic convert into his church without requiring baptism first.

In the end, it was that same spiritual journey in Christ that he has been on that eventually led dcbrit03 to Catholicism, and I assume that he believes that his walk with God will only grow stronger and deeper as a Catholic or else he never would have made the switch. However, that doesn’t delegitimize what Christ did in his life beforehand.

yes, this is exactly how I feel. you have hit the nail on the head

 

[dcbrit2003]

Indeed, a fact I mentioned to him, as well. He’s within his rights to appeal the bishop’s decision, which he appears to be in the process of doing.

The feelings I was referring to aren’t about anyone’s conversion or life in Christ, as I tried to emphasize, but seemingly failed to do. My point is simply that ensuring that a baptism is valid has nothing to do with anyone’s feeling about it. No one is making any decisions based on their feelings in this matter, nor should feelings have any bearing on determining the validity of one’s baptism.

All of us who follow Christ have conversion experiences throughout our lives. Some are quite dramatic, such St. Francis of Assisi had when he left behind his life of dissipation to follow the call of God to conversion and service to him and his fellow man. These types of conversions the Church calls “awakenings to faith” that are prompted by the Holy Spirit and not on one’s feelings. They’re a necessary part of our spiritual growth, but they have little to do with determining the validity of sacraments, which is what the discussion is about.

A well thought out post