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

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcbrit2003
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Update:

Here is my letter to the Bishop. All names have been removed to protect the parties involved, with the exception of the Church network that the Community Church is apostolic-ally affiliated to:

Dear Bishop [FIRST NAME}:

I am writing to you about an issue, which you may or may not already be aware of as I have initially raised my concerns with Fr [NAME], the Chancellor of the Diocese. I reside in the Parish of [PARISH] and since November last year I have been attending the Parish’s RCIA course. All was going well and there were no issues to speak of that arose during the course that made me thank that becoming a Catholic was not appropriate for me and I was looking forward to receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord for the first time in my Parish Church on Easter Sunday.
On 7th April, approximately two weeks before Easter Sunday I was attending RCIA class and we were asked by the RCIA Course leader to make sure the information was correct on the forms for reception into the Catholic Church that were about to be submitted. I then signed the form after checking the information was correct. That Friday ( 11th April ), I received a phone call from the RCIA Leader informing me that a Conditional Baptism would be required as the Church where I had been Baptised was not recognized. This was a shock to me, and after researching what a Conditional Baptism was I discovered that they are performed when there is a doubt about the validity of Baptism and that by inference there was a doubt about my membership of the entire Christian Community (The Body of Christ). In conscience, the only option for me was to refuse as I had already been baptised
I was baptised on the 1st October 2006 at [COMMUNITY CHURCH], which is a member of the Salt and Light Ministries church network here in the UK. {The Community Church] is fully within the Charismatic Protestant Evangelical tradition. It is also a member of the Evangelical Alliance and is active in it’s local ‘Churches Together’ initiative. [The Community Church] has an orthodox view of the Trinity and as far as I am aware, accepts the Nicene Creed as an accurate statement of what it believes. My Baptism was performed by full immersion in water using a dedicated Baptism pool. The words used were “Mark, as a confession of your faith, I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt” with the intention, as I understand it, by the Elder/[Community Church] who baptised me that I was being Baptised into Christ’s Body and that by doing so a permanent, indelible mark was being deposited on my sole that cannot be removed.
In my Testimony, I quote from two Bible passages: 2 Corinthians 5:17
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (New King James Bible)

Part 2 below
 
Part 2:

Romans 8:14,16-18,22:
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that children of God and if children, then heirs-heirs of god and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs until now”
Clearly, my intention when I was baptised was that my old self would be left at the foot of The Cross and I would take on my new identity as an adopted Son of God.
The format for all baptisms at [The Community Church] is the following: The person requesting baptism goes through a short baptismal preparation evening where they are quizzed on their understanding of baptism and whether they truly want to be baptised. [The Community Church]’s belief on the significance of baptism is also explained ( I clearly remember being told that once you are baptised into Christ’s Body an indelible mark is left on the sole that cannot be taken away - whatever happens in your life from then onwards, you are known to Christ and part of his family ), then on the day of baptised, the candidate has to give a Testimony, then they get into the baptismal pool and people who want to come up to the microphone and pray for them, or they believe that God has something they want to say to that person then they can do that. Then the person is baptised using the standard Trinitarian formula ( Father, Son, Holy Spirit ). In my case, when I had finished my Testimony and went into the pool, one of the Elders of [The Community Church] came up to the microphone in his capacity as an Elder of [The Community Church] and gave the following quotation which forms part of what [The Community Church] believes happens at baptism :
“In Him, you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redeption of the purchased possession, to the praise of his glory” ( NKJV – Ephesians 1:13-14 )
All of this is on the DVD of my baptism which I have included in this letter. I have included two DVDs in case one of them is defective. This DVD is vital evidence , as I am sure you will appreciate, of the validity ( or not, as the case may be ) of my baptism.
Fr [NAME] has been handling my request that this whole matter be properly investigated, as required by Canon Law as you will know. What he may not appreciate is that I have video evidence for the validity of my baptism as I mentioned it in passing to him in our first phone conversation regarding this matter so I have also sent him two copies of my baptism on DVD and also included a higher quality transcode of the video on a USB memory stick.
Fr [FIRST NAME] has also told me that this whole matter is likely to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I cannot for the life of me imagine why, as there is no real controversy here. In the light of this, please could you provide me with an explanation of this whole matter from your perspective? Why was the original ruling that I needed a Conditional Baptism made on the basis that the church where I got baptised was not recognised? The Ecumenical Directory (99b) says that even if a prior agreement has not been reached with a particular Church/ecclesial community regarding baptism, this should not automatically lead to doubt about the baptism. In the light of this, why did you reach the conclusion that my baptism was not valid because the Church were I got baptised was not recognised? My parish priest, Fr [NAME] told me it was you who made the decision

Part 3 below
 
Part 3:

In any case, it seems clear to me that it is not fair to give candidtates on RCIA a shock like this so late into the process. It seems to me that potential issues like this should be identified much earlier in the process so that there is a chance to do a proper investigation into the validity of the baptism in question and not leave people hanging like myself.
Anyway, I do apologise for the length of this letter and it’s rambling nature but I do hope you agree with me that this is a rather serious issue that needs addressing. I would also like to note that this letter is not an attempt to stop this process going to the Holy See. I actively support all the measures required to clear this matter up. My intention for this letter was to highlight something that may have been overlooked ( the availability of video evidence of my baptism ) and also the apparent process failure and the probability of the need for better training of both RCIA Leaders and Parish Priests to spot potential issues like this much earlier. I would also like an answer to why this whole situation has happened.
Sincerely,

Mark [LAST NAME]

*The letter to the Chancellor of the Diocese will be posted tomorrow ( he does not work on Thursdays ). as I have said before, I think it’s only proper that the people whom these letters are addressed to read them first before anyone else
 
dcbrit2003 said:
A well thought out post 👍
Click to expand...
:tiphat: Thank you. As a convert to Catholicism I understand how fellow converts feel about their life in Christ before entering the Church. I learned so much from my former communities that I can never repay, and will always be grateful to God for having. I learned my way around the Bible, how to make prayer personal, that service to others was as much a part of the Gospel as assuring one’s salvation. I met many committed and holy people who loved God and served him with their whole hearts.

In coming into the Church I lost none of that. Rather all that I had had up until then was completed and enriched by having the fullness of truth, the sacraments, and the prayer and spiritual life of the Church. I fully understand how people feel about going through the process of conversion and all it entails. My dh had to get an annulment from a previous marriage, we had to have a convalidation of our marriage, but neither of those things in any way lessened what we had had in Christ beforehand. After getting everything straightened out our lives only deepened in faith and prayer. I have so much to be grateful for from my early days in the Episcopal Church as well as my years in the Assemblies of God and all those I loved in Evangelical Christianity. I have nothing but thankfulness for all God has done for my dh and I as he led us and kept us under his loving protection all our lives. :yup:
 
To Dcbrit003 and Della:

🙂 and 👍 to both of you. I hope this works out for all involved. Thanks for sharing your situation with us, dcbrit03. Thanks to you, Della, for sharing your heart with everyone. Even though I am AOG and have no plans to change that in the immediate future, I respect and honor your decisions as a fellow brother in Christ and am glad you are where God wants you to be.
 
Della said:
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.
Click to expand...
While it is true that feelings don’t determine the validity of the baptism (or specifically in this case the matter of intent), keep in mind the specifics as they have so far been revealed. The OP believes his baptism to be valid, no valid reason has yet been given to the OP for questioning his baptism, and that we are dealing with a conditional baptism.

A conditional baptism is not appropriate if the prior attempt at baptism is determined to be invalid; one would simply be baptized. We simply have a suggestion of a conditional baptism with no reason given as to why it is necessary. For me, “because I said so” isn’t enough to attempt to re-receive a sacrament. If a valid reason to create doubt is given, that is most certainly a reasonable request to receive a sacrament (IMHO).

And, IMHO, “because I said so” is appropriate in other matters regarding faith. But sacraments are another matter altogether.

I had to deal with this regarding my convalidation. While I was Catholic, I was clueless about the specifics of marriage at the time. I only went through the convalidation because it was explained to me what the problem was.

Once again, communication is the key to everything in life. This whole matter could have simply been avoided had the Bishop’s office explained what the problem is. (note: I’m not blaming the Bishop, because as with any office, intermediaries are utilized and what needs to be communicated might not have properly relayed).
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
While it is true that feelings don’t determine the validity of the baptism (or specifically in this case the matter of intent), keep in mind the specifics as they have so far been revealed. The OP believes his baptism to be valid, no valid reason has yet been given to the OP for questioning his baptism, and that we are dealing with a conditional baptism.

A conditional baptism is not appropriate if the prior attempt at baptism is determined to be invalid; one would simply be baptized. We simply have a suggestion of a conditional baptism with no reason given as to why it is necessary. For me, “because I said so” isn’t enough to attempt to re-receive a sacrament. If a valid reason to create doubt is given, that is most certainly a reasonable request to receive a sacrament (IMHO).

And, IMHO, “because I said so” is appropriate in other matters regarding faith. But sacraments are another matter altogether.

I had to deal with this regarding my convalidation. While I was Catholic, I was clueless about the specifics of marriage at the time. I only went through the convalidation because it was explained to me what the problem was.

Once again, communication is the key to everything in life. This whole matter could have simply been avoided had the Bishop’s office explained what the problem is. (note: I’m not blaming the Bishop, because as with any office, intermediaries are utilized and what needs to be communicated might not have properly relayed).
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I can’t understand the mix up, either. I hope it all gets resolved amicably and soon for Dcbrit003. :yup:
 
Tommy999 said:
WarriorMonk, you also appear to be a man of principle and the kind of person I would like on my side if I ever got jumped in a dark alley. 😉
Click to expand...
Well, for all my faults, I live up to my user name and could definitely help you in that dark alley. 😉
 
Tommy999 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Certainly not. Nor would a conditional baptism in any way be suggesting that there were anything “illegitimate” about his prior walk with Christ - no more so than actual Baptism would do, for someone who had been praying and coming to Church for many years, without ever having actually received Baptism.

Indeed, when an adult receives Baptism in the Catholic Church, it is assumed that he has already been walking with Christ on a daily basis for at least two years, if not longer - it is the beginning of a new kind of relationship with Christ, but that certainly does not negate the relationship that was formed when the person first began to investigate the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, typically one year before beginning the RCIA process, and in many cases, much longer. Most people give their hearts to Jesus quite some time before they ever step foot into an RCIA classroom. That Baptism doesn’t take place until the end of the third period certainly doesn’t negate that - indeed, it’s expected and hoped for, because it’s part of the process of preparing for Baptism.
 
Update:

below is the letter I posed to the Chancellor of the Diocese.

Dear Fr [FIRST NAME]:
I am writing to you because I have further evidence of the validity ( or not as the case maybe ) of my baptism at [The Community Church] on the 1st October 2006. I remember in our original phone conversation mentioning to you that I have my baptism on video. I suspect that this rather important piece of evidence of my baptism didn’t register it’s self properly with you as I have not had a request for a copy. Therefore I am including two copies on DVD with this letter ( in case one copy is defective ) and also a USB memory stick with a high quality version of the video.
Please note that there were two other people baptised during the same service and the Testimony section has been cut out of this version of the video as it is obviously not appropriate that their personal statements be included here. Their actual baptisms are included though, to show that my baptism followed the normal custom of [The Community Church] when baptising people
I can understand if you are wary of using a USB memory stick, as they can easily transmit PC viruses. However, this memory stick has been specifically bought and used for the sole purpose of giving you a higher quality version of my baptism video and the video was copied from my Apple iMac to the USB stick and iMacs are not susceptible to PC viruses at all
Also, I am now not at all sure, having investigated the issue more, that [The Community Church] fits the bill of that the Catholic Church has in mind when referencing demoninations/ecclesial communities where agreement has been reached on the nature of the baptisms performed. [The Community Church] is certainly Congregational in nature – it runs it’s own affairs, but it is actually a Non-Denominational Church. However, this should not matter in the end, as it is the validity of the baptism that is important, not the recognition of certain Churches/ecclesial communities (Ecumenical Directory 99b)
Finally, I am sure you will agree that this additional evidence is vital in your investigation of the matter
Sincerely,

Mark [SURNAME]
 
Hi dcbrit2003,

I rarely post, but have been following this thread and felt I could offer you a different perspective from my own experience.

I too am a convert, but was in about the exact opposite situation as yourself.

The Church accepted my Protestant baptism as valid and I was received into the Church and confirmed. As the years went by and I became more and more knowledgeable about the Faith, I began to have doubts that my baptism was valid (I’m not going to go into the specifics). I decided to write the Bishop and get his judgement on the matter.

I won’t lie - I was actually praying that he would order a conditional baptism and confirmation. I wanted this because it would be quick, and then there would be zero doubt.

Alas, the Bishop and the Vicar General both agreed the baptism was valid and conditional sacraments were out of the question. I was told beforehand that I would be expected to accept in obedience whatever the Bishop ruled in my case.

My point is that sometimes for converts like myself (and hopefully you!), the lesson of seeing our Bishops are true successors of the Apostles and wielding real authority for the good of our souls is a hard one - even if it easy to intellectually accept.

God may very well be trying to teach you a lesson in all this. I thought something coming from someone who’s had the exact opposite feelings (but where the Church’s judgement were still at odds with said feelings) might help.

God bless you and hopefully you’ll be Home soon.
 
I have seen, any number of times, that there are something like 30,000 subdivisions within the Protestant community (and growing).

The Church has a list of religious communities of which the Church says, they do not validly baptize.

That is not a statement that any community not on the list does validly baptize. Most do, but the CDF has neither the time, the staffing, nor the process to chase down every permutation as it occurs to determine whether or not that permutation is still within the parameters of a valid sacramental baptism.

Any of the posters herein may feel that the CDF should be doing so, but that is only a small part of what the CDF is charged with.

It may be that the CDF will say that the original baptism is a sacramental one, as the Church understands it.

It may be that the CDF will say that it is not a valid baptism.

And, it is entirely possible that the CDF will not be able to make a determination within a reasonable amount of time, and will require a conditional baptism - for the reason that they cannot make a determination. And that is possible, even with a video of the baptism, and a sworn statement by the OP.

And that is the reality of the situation.

Why was there a question? Because, as noted, there is such a plethora of subsets that it is not possible to give an answer to each and every subset. That determination is not the bishop’s (as I understand it); it is up to the CDF.

If it were one of the subsets which is recognized, and the bishop has that information, he could make the determination (but what he is actually doing in such circumstance is not making an independent determination, but following the CDF’s).
 
otjm said:
I have seen, any number of times, that there are something like 30,000 subdivisions within the Protestant community (and growing).

The Church has a list of religious communities of which the Church says, they do not validly baptize.

That is not a statement that any community not on the list does validly baptize. Most do, but the CDF has neither the time, the staffing, nor the process to chase down every permutation as it occurs to determine whether or not that permutation is still within the parameters of a valid sacramental baptism.

Any of the posters herein may feel that the CDF should be doing so, but that is only a small part of what the CDF is charged with.

It may be that the CDF will say that the original baptism is a sacramental one, as the Church understands it.

It may be that the CDF will say that it is not a valid baptism.

And, it is entirely possible that the CDF will not be able to make a determination within a reasonable amount of time, and will require a conditional baptism - for the reason that they cannot make a determination. And that is possible, even with a video of the baptism, and a sworn statement by the OP.

And that is the reality of the situation.

Why was there a question? Because, as noted, there is such a plethora of subsets that it is not possible to give an answer to each and every subset. That determination is not the bishop’s (as I understand it); it is up to the CDF.

If it were one of the subsets which is recognized, and the bishop has that information, he could make the determination (but what he is actually doing in such circumstance is not making an independent determination, but following the CDF’s).
Click to expand...
So if the CDF come back to me and say that we don’t have the resources to make a determination here and requests a Conditional Baptism. This will be refused outright . The only way I will submit to a Conditional Baptism is if there is a serious, substantive doubt. The Canon Law says that baptisms performed in non-Catholic ecclesial communities are to be presumed valid unless a doubt can be substantiated

See my first post for a full explanation of this
 
dcbrit2003 said:
So if the CDF come back to me and say that we don’t have the resources to make a determination here and requests a Conditional Baptism. This will be refused outright . The only way I will submit to a Conditional Baptism is if there is a serious, substantive doubt. The Canon Law says that baptisms performed in non-Catholic ecclesial communities are to be presumed valid unless a doubt can be substantiated

See my first post for a full explanation of this
Click to expand...
The doubt is substantiated if they cannot make a determination that it is valid. A point that seems to escape you.

It is not always black and white; presumptions may say “yes it is valid” and then, again, there may enough of a question that t cannot be answered in a week or two - or more.

I don’t have a do in this fight; whatever answer they give is sufficient for me. I pray that it will be sufficient for you.
 
Sorry, I’m not buying the “we don’t have time and resources” argument. Why?

First, the Catholic Church takes sacraments seriously. In fact, it’s one of the reasons why the Catholic Churches are different from the other Churches.

Second, we see what goes on with another sacrament where there are plenty of problems: Marriage. At minimum for an annulment (barring lack of form cases), interviews and all sorts of paperwork are required; e.g., divorce papers, current baptismal certificates, affidavits from the person requesting the investigation as well as witnesses, etc…the it costs time and money.

I can’t imagine that the Church simply says, “Get a conditional baptism, we can’t waste our time or be bothered with investigating.”
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Sorry, I’m not buying the “we don’t have time and resources” argument. Why?

First, the Catholic Church takes sacraments seriously. In fact, it’s one of the reasons why the Catholic Churches are different from the other Churches.

Second, we see what goes on with another sacrament where there are plenty of problems: Marriage. At minimum for an annulment (barring lack of form cases), interviews and all sorts of paperwork are required; e.g., divorce papers, current baptismal certificates, affidavits from the person requesting the investigation as well as witnesses, etc…the it costs time and money.

I can’t imagine that the Church simply says, “Get a conditional baptism, we can’t waste our time or be bothered with investigating.”
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Cases involving the question of marriage validity often come down the same issues: intent. How the intent at the time of marriage be proven beyond reasonable doubt? In many cases it simply can’t; it’s just a best guess based on the information before the Tribunal.
 
dcbrit2003 said:
So if the CDF come back to me and say that we don’t have the resources to make a determination here and requests a Conditional Baptism. This will be refused outright .
Click to expand...
Why is it that you want to be Catholic?

Usually it’s because people believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. In your case, it sounds like the only one who has the truth is you, yourself. You don’t trust your pastor, your bishop, or the CDF. Unless they agree with you, they are simply wrong and you are right.

At this point I’m not asking about your baptism. I am asking what is it that you think the Church has to offer you. Why do you even want to be part of such an imperfect body?
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Why is it that you want to be Catholic?

Usually it’s because people believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. In your case, it sounds like the only one who has the truth is you, yourself. You don’t trust your pastor, your bishop, or the CDF. Unless they agree with you, they are simply wrong and you are right.

At this point I’m not asking about your baptism. I am asking what is it that you think the Church has to offer you. Why do you even want to be part of such an imperfect body?
Click to expand...
I think these are good questions and quite insightful. My above response was given earlier today when I was feeling particularly negative about the whole process. The answer I gave was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question, in truth, I would probably go on a silent retreat for a week or so and try to let a Jesus speak to me and have a chance to really talk it over with a priest or someone before making my mind up.

Currently, I am walking to Canterbury on Pilgrimage and the above post was written at the start of today’s walk when feeling low.

One thing I wish to make clear is that not for one moment do I think I have all the right answers and everyone else is wrong. Anyway, you have brought up,some food for thought for me on the next stage of my Pilgrimage tomorrow

Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top