Was my baptism invalid? CDF says "We Baptize" Invalid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
StudentMI:
Thanks. But what about confirmation?
Click to expand...
The Holy See has not said that a “wrong” baptism invalidates someone’s later confirmation in good faith. Nor has it said that those with a “wrong” baptism need to get re-confirmed after being re-baptized.
Click to expand...
Since baptism is the gateway to the Sacraments, it stands to reason that a valid one is an antecedent requirement for the others. If someone’s baptism is actually and truly adjudicated as invalid by lawful Church authority (and that’s a big if) then the Confirmation would need to be repeated.
 
1ke said:
40.png
CilladeRoma:
What the Church requires for a Protestant baptism to be valid is that it be Trinitarian in nature.
Click to expand...
More specifically it requires the Trinitarian Formula “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.“
Click to expand...
The sole difference is the word “we” was used for the OP ratherthan “I”.

It seems more.likely that the “we” was an acknowledgement that two celebrants were present rather than any attempt at a greater inclusion of the congregation or community.

I am not aware of any cases of Catholic baptisms where more than one prieat or deacon officiates, nor do I know whether such would be either illicit but valid, or flat-out invalid.
 
My understanding which is certainly fallible is that the invalid baptism would necessitate a conditional confirmation, but this is based only on a remark from my RCIA director.
 
A priest I know told me today it sounded like a partial baptism.
 
If you don’t like my answer, please speak to your priest and/or send in another Dubia.

I’m pretty sure that somewhere out there in this wide world is a Catholic priest who is a convert and recalls that he long ago had one of these “we” baptisms. I doubt that the Church will be pulling Father from his parish and making him have a do-over ordination because his baptism is antecedent to Holy Orders as well as everything else.
 
Last edited:
In my case I was not told by anyone to avoid the abundant help of the sacraments but due to my respect for the Body of Christ I will not approach his table while there is reasonable doubt about my baptism, because I fear to commit a sacrilege by receiving Him unworthily. I intend to assist the Mass by prayer.
 
StudentMI said:
A priest I know told me today it sounded like a partial baptism.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a partial baptism that I am aware of. It may be a case where the validity is in question, but not definitely invalid, in which case a conditional baptism would be the remedy.
 
I asked this of my parish priest when speaking about my husband’s baptism possibly being invalid. He told me the other sacraments that came after baptism are not invalid as my husband believed he was validly baptized when he received them, and so did the church/priest that administered those sacraments.
 
I sometimes wonder if some dioceses are far too “accepting” of various Protestant denomination baptisms. Sometimes it seems like the priest / deacon / RCIA director says “oh it was a Baptist church, so we’re good”, without necessarily investigating the possible variations at the local community/church level, or even the local variations of individual ministers in these very non-centralized denominations. Maybe I’m wrong…but that’s the impression I get.

I was baptized at the age of 12 using a Trinitarian formula in a Mennonite denomination. When I was received into the Church at the age of 18, the bishop conditionally baptized me as he had a doubt regarding the intent (a doubt that I originally raised myself)…and I am so grateful for that because it gave me peace of mind.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m pretty sure that somewhere out there in this wide world is a Catholic priest who is a convert and recalls that he long ago had one of these “we” baptisms. I doubt that the Church will be pulling Father from his parish and making him have a do-over ordination because his baptism is antecedent to Holy Orders as well as everything else.
Click to expand...
That certainly would be a conundrum. I see your point.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m pretty sure that somewhere out there in this wide world is a Catholic priest who is a convert and recalls that he long ago had one of these “we” baptisms. I doubt that the Church will be pulling Father from his parish and making him have a do-over ordination because his baptism is antecedent to Holy Orders as well as everything else.
Click to expand...
Just thinking out loud…but I suppose the bishop could quietly and discreetly conditionally baptize him, conditionally confirm him, and conditionally ordain him…but that would be a pretty bizarre situation.
 
I think that now that the Church has clarified the issue with the document from the CDF that “we” baptisms are certainly invalid, the Priest in question, as long as he is reasonably sure that he was baptized invalidly, should indeed be conditionally baptized, conditionally confirmed, and conditionally ordained (if such a thing exists!!). However it isn’t my decision to make and neither is it yours.

The important thing is to pray for all who may have false confidence in their salvation due to the widespread confusion and error surrounding the Sacrament of Faith and entry to to regeneration, that is to say Baptism.
 
I also am concerned about this, to wit, the acceptance of Protestant baptisms at face value, but I have spoken about it with those who have the authority and can do nothing else but pray for all who are uncertain, including myself.
 
1ke said:
40.png
LilyM:
The sole difference is the word “we” was used for the OP ratherthan “I”.
Click to expand...
Which the CDF, confirmed by Pope Francis, says is invalid.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

It just seems odd to base the whole validity of a sacrament on the celebrant using ‘I’ as opposed to ‘we’ in reference to themselves in a case where there was in fact morw than one.

If that is a hill to die on, so be it.
 
Last edited:
I wish I had that peace of mind. I was baptized as a baby in a Protestant context where I also later doubted the intent (and there was literally no way to know what actually happened, because my parents didn’t remember and nothing was recorded), but because the denomination was technically on the ‘good’ list my priest rejected my request for a conditional baptism and simply confirmed me.

Now with this whole issue coming up again (and having no idea whether the specific words spoken matched the necessary form), I continue to desire conditional baptism but dread coming off to my priest as scrupulous about it. I’m tempted to find just any old person who will quietly do it in my home, rather than ask my priest, but I’m wondering if maybe my priest should be the one I go to first, just as a matter of respect for the Church, even if I anticipate he’ll say “no” again.

I’ve previously tried to take it on faith that I’m fine and that God will recognize my desire and obedience to His Church (through this specific priest) as essentially a baptism of desire if nothing else. But now with the Vatican literally declaring these other baptisms invalid on the basis of one word change, and making it seem even more plausible to me that my own baptism could have been invalid…

I do feel uncomfortable like it’s sort of ‘magical thinking’ (that God would withhold the sacramental graces on the basis of one word, if the intent is correct). But then again, I’m not even sure in the first place that the minister who baptized me has correct intent.

The whole thing is just a never resolved concern, and it baffles me that priests are so resistant to conditionally baptizing concerned Protestants before confirming us. It’s quick to conditionally baptize; it’s long to have to wonder one’s whole life about whether one is actually baptized.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
I sometimes wonder if some dioceses are far too “accepting” of various Protestant denomination baptisms. Sometimes it seems like the priest / deacon / RCIA director says “oh it was a Baptist church, so we’re good”, without necessarily investigating the possible variations at the local community/church level, or even the local variations of individual ministers in these very non-centralized denominations. Maybe I’m wrong…but that’s the impression I get.

I was baptized at the age of 12 using a Trinitarian formula in a Mennonite denomination. When I was received into the Church at the age of 18, the bishop conditionally baptized me as he had a doubt regarding the intent (a doubt that I originally raised myself)…and I am so grateful for that because it gave me peace of mind.
Click to expand...
You are not the only one to think about this; I have thought about this as well and have seen some priests and even bishops argue that conditional baptisms should be done more often, especially when a Christian was not baptized in a mainline denomination that have set rubrics similar to Catholics - and even then you never know sometimes, especially nowadays.

I’m not sure how old the rules about conditional baptisms are, but I feel like they would have been more relevant 30+ years ago when not as many Protestant denominations were as off the rails as they are today. Perhaps the rules on how frequently conditional baptisms are performed should be reviewed in today’s world where there is much more variation, even within the mainline Protestant denominations that used to be much more similar to Catholic beliefs and doctrine.

I guess the rules are the way they are because the bishops didn’t want to foster doubt about needing only one baptism and leading people to believe that you need to be baptized again. I am also sure that “ecumenicism” comes into play as well, that the bishops didn’t want to be seen as being too hostile and rejecting fellow Christians by not accepting their baptisms. Maybe at the time these rules were made that was a more reasonable approach but I have my doubts in today’s world. I think most Protestant baptisms are probably valid but I also think, more than ever in the light of this ruling, that there are a not insignificant number of converts who, through no fault of their own, probably have invalid baptisms due to the wide amount of variation among Protestant denominations on how they treat sacraments and liturgy.
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
I do feel uncomfortable like it’s sort of ‘magical thinking’ (that God would withhold the sacramental graces on the basis of one word, if the intent is correct)
Click to expand...
I share that too, specially since the invalid formula isn’t distorting the nature of God (the Trinity) but just changing the subject of the sentence (and, no, I am not defending proggressive theology, just saying this CDF correction borders on magical thinking).
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
The whole thing is just a never resolved concern, and it baffles me that priests are so resistant to conditionally baptizing concerned Protestants before confirming us. It’s quick to conditionally baptize; it’s long to have to wonder one’s whole life about whether one is actually baptized.
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate, all in the name of ecumenism apparently. It doesn’t cost anything, it takes 5 minutes, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top