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.
Blessings on your pilgrimage, Mark. I hope you find everything you’re looking for.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
You don’t trust your pastor, your bishop, or the CDF. Unless they agree with you, they are simply wrong and you are right.
Click to expand...
The problem at this point really isn’t with the baptism, it is with the lack of communication. Do you believe that is proper to keep catechumens in the dark as to issues pertaining to the entering the Church, especially that this is something that should have been identified months ago?

The lack of communication is the root case of so much misunderstanding and conflict. People should stop looking at, and making comments on, the result, and looking at the cause. Had this issue been properly discussed with the OP, this thread, and the nasty, judgmental posts contained herein (and that goes for the person that made a ridiculous, judgmental post about disrespecting a bishop…you should know better).
 
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...
For starters, it wasn’t for sale.

You need to read a bit more carefully. A thorough investigation could take months, if not into a year. As I said, there may be sufficient evidence they have available to them to answer that it was valid.

And I never said anything about the CDF taking the attitude of “we can’t waste our time or be bothered with investigating.” Your attitude is showing. If the OP is desirous of entering the Church (and that is how we got to this point), and the CDF determines that it would not be in anyone’s best interest to delay this for a long time, it is within the realm of possibility that they could so respond.

They may very well have sufficient information to be able to confirm the validity of the original baptism; or if they don’t, they may rely on a presumption and simply give it a pass. Or they may perceive that there is a need for a lengthy investigation, and presume that it is not in the best interest of the OP to make him wait. :Their call, not yours and not mine. But the last would appear to be within the realm of possibilities, for the very simple reason that the Church (and by analogy, the CDF) take baptism very seriously, and they also take entry into the Church very seriously.
 
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...
I think it is wonderful that desirous of becoming a Catholic you journeyed through RCIA intending to be received into the Church at the Easter Vigil and unfortunate that this issue came up, and especially so that it was not addressed much, much earlier in the process.

I would like pose a question though, not for you to answer here, but to consider as hopefully you continue on this journey? What will you choose to do the next time you strongly disagree with a teaching, discipline or action of the Church or a statement or action of a legitimate Church authority? And each and every time after that? As a lifelong Catholic heavily involved in parish activities, I can assure you that it is not unusual or rare that these issues do and will occur.

What’s more I think we face similar situations in other areas of life and with some frequency. I happen to be certified to conduct certain activities locally for a national organization, not Church related, and must meet certain requirements to maintain that certification. Recently those of us with such certification were informed that we must also agree to a Code of Ethics. And the posts on our website read very much like those on this thread. Most of us have agreed to it while some have refused, knowing they will lose their certification. A few however have posted over and over again, adamantly demanding to know who actually authored this code and/or why it is now being required. And each time the response from leadership has been the same: “Your questions have been noted. The requirement is made within our authority and stands. Your choice is to agree by the deadline specified and maintain your certification or to refuse and thereby forfeit your certification. End of discussion.”

And on a very trivial note, I went to the local nursery today intending to buy 10 tomato plants, all I have room for in my garden. I found that they were priced at $1.99 a piece thus costing me $19.90 or I could buy a flat of 12 for $14.99. “Can I buy just the 10 and still pay $14.99,” I asked. “No, you must take the additional two to get the $14.99 price,” said the cashier. “But why,” I said. “That makes no sense.” “Do you want the 10 or 12?” was the reply. Once again, legitimate authority had spoken.

I do realize that these examples nothing like your issue with the Sacrament of Baptism. I simply with kind intent want to point out that, just as with many things in life, the sacraments do not come to us on our own terms.
 
I wish the Catholic Church weren’t so kind and just required conditional baptism and full confirmation/chrismation for everyone ‘baptized’ outside the Catholic Church, except maybe for Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Church of the East who choose to enter the Eastern Catholic Churches by profession of faith. The allowance of even recognizing these other sects actions is a toleration at best, and is now being used to criticize the Church. Let’s follow the Orthodox model on this.
 
SyroMalankara said:
I wish the Catholic Church weren’t so kind and just required conditional baptism and full confirmation/chrismation for everyone ‘baptized’ outside the Catholic Church, except maybe for Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Church of the East who choose to enter the Eastern Catholic Churches by profession of faith. The allowance of even recognizing these other sects actions is a toleration at best, and is now being used to criticize the Church. Let’s follow the Orthodox model on this.
Click to expand...
It would definitely save a lot of time. 🙂
 
Update:

I’ve had no reply from the Bishop or the Chancellor of the Diocese

Dear Fr XXXXXXX,

It’s been over three weeks since your e-mail below, do you have any updates? Also, did you receive my letter and DVDs as I have had no reply from you. Thanks

Mark
 
dcbrit2003 said:
Update:

I’ve had no reply from the Bishop or the Chancellor of the Diocese

Dear Fr XXXXXXX,

It’s been over three weeks since your e-mail below, do you have any updates? Also, did you receive my letter and DVDs as I have had no reply from you. Thanks

Mark
Click to expand...
Perhaps the St. Joseph Foundation could be of help in your situation.

stjosephcanonlaw.com/
 
1ke said:
Perhaps the St. Joseph Foundation could be of help in your situation.

stjosephcanonlaw.com/
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I don’t hear back by Friday next week I see no other choice than to hire a Canon Lawyer, unfortunately I think the St Joseph Foundation only deals with issues relating to American Dioceses?
 
I’ve just asked the Lead Elder of the Community Church wether anyone has been in contact about my Baptism and he said No. I now need to know what my options are as it appears that this is not going to be resolved by the Chancellor of the Diocese. Since it is clear that this is being ignored, can I now go straight to the metropolitan bishop? What can I do? Some advise please
 
Tommy999 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Conditional baptism does not de-legitimize a person’s prior walk with Christ. I see it as an insurance policy - just to make sure, in case the baptism wasn’t valid. It’s not saying that the prior baptism was invalid, just that there is a question - only about the sacramental nature of the baptism - and we need to be sure. Aside from that, is it not possible that the Holy Spirit leads one in relationship to Christ to be baptized properly?

By the way - the Catholic church has, after a very long and tedious process, come to an agreement with the Presbyterian Church (and others) regarding baptism. (Though I know there are now many fractures within Presbyterianism and I don’t know if the agreement is with all). It might be interesting for OP to read that agreement, if he has a weekend or two in which to do it. He might come to understand that the Catholic Church’s understanding of what constitutes a valid baptism goes way beyond the form and the words - or the understanding and acceptance of the Nicene creed.
 
DAML72 said:
Conditional baptism does not de-legitimize a person’s prior walk with Christ. I see it as an insurance policy - just to make sure, in case the baptism wasn’t valid. It’s not saying that the prior baptism was invalid, just that there is a question - only about the sacramental nature of the baptism - and we need to be sure. Aside from that, is it not possible that the Holy Spirit leads one in relationship to Christ to be baptized properly?

By the way - the Catholic church has, after a very long and tedious process, come to an agreement with the Presbyterian Church (and others) regarding baptism. (Though I know there are now many fractures within Presbyterianism and I don’t know if the agreement is with all). It might be interesting for OP to read that agreement, if he has a weekend or two in which to do it. He might come to understand that the Catholic Church’s understanding of what constitutes a valid baptism goes way beyond the form and the words - or the understanding and acceptance of the Nicene creed.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link?
 
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...
The Bishop’s office has just gotten involved. It was probably a proclamation by the Bishop that the priest was following that said that people baptized in non-recognized churches need to be conditionally baptized. Why is this not explanation enough for you? Once the investigation is done, then the Bishop can either affirm the baptism or give a more specific reason why OP needs to be baptized.

Did the RCIA director screw up by leaving this to the last minute? Yes. But it’s time to move on from there. Hopefully future candidates will be treated differently, but we can’t change the past. Time to forgive and move on.
 
dcbrit2003 said:
I’ve just asked the Lead Elder of the Community Church wether anyone has been in contact about my Baptism and he said No. I now need to know what my options are as it appears that this is not going to be resolved by the Chancellor of the Diocese. Since it is clear that this is being ignored, can I now go straight to the metropolitan bishop? What can I do? Some advise please
Click to expand...
I thought you said earlier it had been referred to the bishop and then the CDF. If so, I assume you’ll have to wait for an answer from them (which may be that you will need a conditional baptism). Or be conditionally baptized and be done with it.

What do you mean by going straight to the bishop? I thought it had already been referred to him.
 
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...
I don’t think that was the point. Has anyone denied dcbrit an investigation? No! I think the point was that the CDF doesn’t have the time or resources to proactively stay abreast of all the new denominations out there. So, the Bishop, in his discretion, has ordered that those baptized in non-recognized churches be conditionally baptized. If the person wants to accept conditional baptism and move forward with confirmation, hunky dorey - saves a lengthy and costly investigation. If not, then an investigation will be done. What’s so hard to understand about this?
 
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...
Agreed. In all honestly, DCbrit2003, after following this post and reading the letter you wrote to the Bishop, I don’t think you are ready to enter the Church.
 
dcbrit2003 said:
I’ve just asked the Lead Elder of the Community Church wether anyone has been in contact about my Baptism and he said No. I now need to know what my options are as it appears that this is not going to be resolved by the Chancellor of the Diocese. Since it is clear that this is being ignored, can I now go straight to the metropolitan bishop? What can I do? Some advise please
Click to expand...
No. You cannot appeal from Rome to the Archbishop*. At this point in time, there is nothing to appeal because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not yet made a decision.

At this point, there is nothing to do but await the CDF’s decision on this. If you try to “appeal” this to any other authority, it will make matters much worse.

There is only one option: wait for the CDF’s decision.
  • in addition to the fact that one cannot appeal to a lower authority from a decision made by higher authority, appealing to the archbishop is not how things work. It might seem as if the archbishop can overturn the bishop (and sometimes, in marriage cases, that is somewhat true), but in a matter such as this, the archbishop does not have authority to overturn the bishop nor to become involved.
 
Is it a problem (doctrinally, spiritually, etc) to be baptized twice, the second being in the Catholic Church?

Would God consider it some sort of breach to have the Sacrament performed twice, with the (hypothetical) intention being to be absolutely sure that a proper Baptism had been performed at least once?
 
EIF5A said:
Is it a problem (doctrinally, spiritually, etc) to be baptized twice, the second being in the Catholic Church?

Would God consider it some sort of breach to have the Sacrament performed twice, with the (hypothetical) intention being to be absolutely sure that a proper Baptism had been performed at least once?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for God but:

-the Catholic Church would consider it improper for someone to undergo the rite of Baptism, i.e the pouring of water and the saying of the Trinitarian and perhaps the additional prayers and actions, a second time 1) unless there is some doubt that the person was validly baptized the first time and 2) unless the second rite is performed conditionally,” i.e. with the addition of the phrase “if you have not been baptized before” at the beginning of the formula. Otherwise it would be contrary to the Church’s teaching that the sacrament of Baptism can only be received once.

-other churches would consider it offensive as a denial that a person baptized in their tradition including water, the Trinitarian formula, and the proper intention was validly baptized.

-the OP would consider it objectionable, even if done conditionally, for personal reasons he has expressed in his previous posts here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top